I think that it is unfortunate that the just posted survey didn't simply ask:
1) Are you in favor of a spec manifold? Yes or No
2) Are you in favor of additional clarification of the rules on existing manifods? Yes or No
3) At what level do you compete? National, Regional or Both
So why do I say this? What Statisticians, Quality Control and Customer Service Professionals will tell you is that how a survey is organized and presented can have a huge influence on the reliability of the results.
In the case of the just published FV manifold survey we are asked to choose between:
1) A utopian "control" manifold that promisses in detail additional power, equality and economy despite the fact that highly qualified individuals in the FV community who have seen and tested a sample have grave reservations that this can actually be achieved.
2) An undefined range of choices for the existing manifold that do not include the rich details already available that were presented by the FV engine/manifold producers at the 2009 Runoffs FV meeting and that have since been refined, specified in text and drawings and validated by all of the manifold suppliers.
3) The one question that might actually get an unbiased response.