NO on the after market pistons.....who would stand to gain monetarily from making these. STOCK is good.
No on the valve springs. Why have these? So you can rev higher or save weight? STOCK is good.
NO on the fuel thing. My engine requires 87 octane and that's what I use. If it's very hot outside and I have an old head with deposits, I might run 89. I don't need 91 and race gas is a waste of money.
We should only be using pump gas with NO additives except for valve cleaners and such.

IMO it opens a door that should (for the time being) stay closed.

There is no shortage of blocks, pistons or cranks at this point in time.

No to all three. Unnecessary changes
Lee

Allowing repair of our engines is a great idea. I see no issue of performance here, only allowing us to save blocks

I do not see any need for a gas rule at this time.

I do not know enough about the spring issue. If it improves our reliability, I support the idea. I have had several valve spring failures. Of course, I don't know why they failed but if some other spring can avoid this known problem, I say wonderful.

As for the concern about reving higher, who cares. Our engines quit making power at 6K or so but if better springs can prevent an issue on an over-rev, again, great idea to protect our engines. I know of many engines that have been damages due to drivers making a mistake and we should try to prevent as many of these as we can. Again, I do not see this as a performance issue and it should be considered.

Jim

#1 Yes on the pistons 100.05 @ 9.5-1
I do think there is a shortage of saveable motors. It seems you have to buy a whole $1500 car, strip it, sell stuff to recoup, recycle, discard etc. Tear the motor apart only to find its crap. I already have 3 of every thing except useable shortblocks. After all of that $600-800 for a non performance advantage piston set seems like free to me. I haven't had any luck finding local junkyard motors priced right, and am not paying non refundable freight to buy sight unseen motors from afar. I say yes on rebuilder 9.5 pistons and teleport all 10.2 88 pistons into outerspace including my set

#2 no opinion yet
#3 no opinion yet

My Take

1) Mixed feelings. I understand where we are going with this, but also fear guys doing rebuilds with new pistons for no reason. Our bores are generally long lasting and don't need maching work. This would open things up to making machine work a standard practice when doing a motor. That will drive up costs. The counter arguments are two fold. The performance gain form this piston size is tiny. In fact more gain probably will come from a better match from piston clearance vs bore diameter. It will allow us to reuse older slightly damaged blocks. One day blocks will become scarce and that will limit the growth of the class. At that time this will be an important step to keeping the class viable.

However I am not sure we are there now. My perference is to say no to this for 2010. This is a big step and once opened we will not have any easy time taking it away. So rather than make a mistake and allow somehting now that we may regret... Lets no do it for 2010. We can reconsider next year for 2011. This will give us more time to understand the implications of this.

2) No, but mixed...I personally have no issues/fears with race gas. As such we don't need this. However if we really do think pump gas is the way to go in our class I think this is the best way to control it. Fuel sampling is not hard, but it will take a chemical analysis to validate and the nature of fuel additives in pump gas can make it hard to know what is legal. Seems so much easier to say "here use this fuel" as a way to contol it. Even so it far easier to no even do anything. Since I don't see it as major issue I don't even think we should mess with it.

3) No... Some guys asked for Turbo valve springs. Now where are you? If Turbo's are ok how about other springs? Nah keep it stock.