On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 4:25:28 PM UTC-8, wrote:
As Kev aptly described, it seems like the rules scema actually defeats its proported purpose of enhancing safety. This keeps up the contests become more a "contest" of who can "gam" the rules structure, more than a test of soaring skill.

Nope. Here's the proposed wording. You always get at least as many points as a landout at the cylinder edge. On a devalued day you could reach that many points at higher than 400', but you'd not generally be able to figure that out while flying and it would still be in your interest to finish, unless you can't make the airport.

10.9.2.5.1 When the Finish Height Difference is not greater than 400 feet, the pilot is eligible for a finish time, at the cylinder entry time.
10.9.2.5.2 When the Finish Height Difference is greater than zero and less than or equal to 400 feet, a penalty (¶ 12.1.3.5) applies; such penalty shall not yield a score lower than if Finish Height Difference exceeded 400'.
10.9.2.5.3 When the Finish Height Difference is greater than 400 feet, the task is incomplete. The distance of the final task leg shall be computed per ¶ 10.9.2.6.

BTW, this is the philosophy that people voted for. Of the 55% of pilots who voted to modify the finish rule (45% didn't want to change it), 54% wanted a penalty equal to a landout at a finish height from which you couldn't glide to a landing at the home airport. The RC picked 400' as that altitude for both 1 mile and 2 mile cylinders. For two miles, assuming 100' at the threshold, no need to use altitude in a turn to final and a runway at the center of the cylinder (could be better, could be a lot worse if the finish is downwind and you have to actually make a pattern), that works out to about 35:1.

That was the thinking.

Andy Blackburn