After discussion in various media the "three-round elimination format" was proposed at the Australian Drag Racing Promoters Association conference, where it was accepted by those present and will be put to the sport's National Control Council in the coming months.

While there is nothing explicit in any of the paperwork issued so far that this applies to any given Group One bracket, the fact that follow-up letters, explaining the idea in detail, along with other matters, has been sent to all Top Fuel racers, it has been presumed to apply to at least all of them, but it has been rejected in its present form before it's even got any further.

Under the concept, all competitors in feature Group One brackets would run two rounds of racing, with no pre-qualifying, with the quickest four winners from the second of these rounds being taken into a final round, with the third and fourth quickest racing to decide third and fourth place, and the two quickest racing to decide second and first places. It's a system that is very similar to that which has been used for Wild Bunch racing for some time, so would be familiar to many in Top Doorslammer.

To explain the new proposal, a Head Office letter that was issued to all Top Fuel racers stated:

"If you're a spectator and you happen to be a bit slow getting to the track on Saturday evening because you haven't been before or the traffic's a bit heavy, you can miss half the show. If you're just 15 minutes late the eight-car feature brackets will already be cut in half. You won't see the losers again, and you never would have seen those who didn't qualify at all.

"Everyone works hard to win the first round, but the remote possibility that you might lose is a great incentive to make sure your sponsors and friends are comfortably settled before the eliminations begin.

"Because we all love drag racing we know that there are some great contest and spectacles in qualifying, but fantastic performances by some of the most expensive race cars on earth have happened in front of empty mounds and grandstands. Maybe the fact that some people aren't willing to spend two days and nights at the track is not our problem, but it is a waste of resources from an event or exposure viewpoint.

"The other consideration is television. As you would be aware, it costs a lot of money to have cameras and crews at the track, and anything we can do to reduce the time they're needed is a bonus. If you're guaranteed of being in at least two rounds of competition, with a better chance of being in the final round, with no qualifying to get through, you're also going to get at least twice as much television exposure.

"The three-round format would provide two rounds for all vehicles in the bracket, with a final round for four at the end of the night. There would be no qualifying as we know it now, although sessions would be provided for those teams wishing to test. The first session at the opening of the event is the seeding round for all entered cars, with pairings, bye runs, lane choice and so on allocated on current points standings.

"The second round is seeded on the results of the first round, and again, all cars in the bracket are included. The final (round) matches the four quickest winners from the second round. Third and fourth (quickest) race for those positions and first and second (quickest) race for winner and runner-up in the last race of the night. At the end of the race we have first to fourth, which is easier for the fans to understand, and you still go home if you lose.

"Because the field is open ended, the prizemoney total is hard to determine. That's still being discussed, but it's fair to say that the teams shouldn't come away with any less. The other issue is the timing of the rounds in a four and a half hour event. Eight cars will deliver 10 paired passes instead of the current seven, so it will take longer to get through. Issues of run order and scheduling become crucial.

"The 1997 Promoters Conference accepted the principle for use at the Group One level, and ANDRA will consider using it on a trial basis in one or two brackets in the '97-98 season. The National Control Council will be talking about it in late June. The three-round format requires a big shift in our thinking, but it offers some worthwhile benefits."

The Australian Drag Racing Promoters Association supported a trial of the format in one or two Group One eliminators during the 1997-98 season and the ANDRA Competition Committee will be asked to develop the concept for consideration.

One of the problems that arises from this proposal is that it almost prevents all but the quickest racers (for which you can read the best funded) from winning. For example, at the Nitro Championships, which was won by Terry Sainty, if we take the first round - in which the eight entered and still running cars ran - as the "second round" of the proposed "three-round elimination format" we find that the four winners were Graeme Cowin (5.13), Romeo Capitanio (5.20), Rachelle Splatt (16.94) and Terry Sainty (5.60).

From this, the final round under the new proposal would have been Cowin and Capitanio racing for first and second, and Splatt and Sainty racing for third and fourth. Sainty could not have been a winner, and to be so would have had to run better than a 5.20 in the "second round" to do it.

As another example, let's look at the last time Robin Kirby won in Top Fuel (Willowbank, February 1996), but an event which he would not have won under the proposed system, if we again accept the results of the first round of racing under the old system becoming the second round. The winners in that "second round" were Kirby (5.97), Splatt (5.16) and Steve Read (5.06).

The information available so far does not state what happens in the event of six cars or less in the first two rounds, but certainly the two quickest, and by definition the cars to run for first and second, would have been Splatt and Read, with Kirby taking a solo for third place.

Plainly it's a case that in the second of the all-run rounds, you're not just racing the car in the other lane, but all the other winners of that round, which on the basis of the current number of cars available for the bracket means three to four others. You have to be one of the two quickest winners or you won't, by definition, be the ultimate bracket winner.

The response from the above two exampled racers was a little cautious, since neither had seen or heard anything of this at the time of going to press, but Kirby told DRAGSTER, "Though I haven't had a chance to look at this in detail it certainly seems to favour the quicker cars, and there would be little or no chance of us getting into the final at anytime."

Stan Sainty was also wary of the idea. "I haven't seen anything of this yet, but in my opinion the elimination procedure should remain the same as it's been. An idea like this will not help the slower cars get into the bracket at all."

However, it isn't just the up and comers who objected to the proposal. Jim Read also expressed his dissatisfaction with the idea. "I believe in the current elimination system, which I think is the only fair system for all racers. Unless someone can convince me that this new idea is a better system I'm not interested in change.

We have to be objective here, and we don't want to necessarily throw this out off-hand, but I don't think we've been given enough information to decide. It may be better for television, in terms of getting us in front of the TV cameras, but we need to be showing all the show, not just Top Fuel. We haven't been told the prizmeoney payout and we haven't been asked our opinion until we got this two-question, yes or no questionnaire, and that's inadequate."

Rachelle Splatt's team chief, Ian Splatt, told DRAGSTER, "It isn't drag racing as far as we're concerned. It favours all the top cars at the expense of the bottom cars, although I suppose it depends on how you do your seeding from that first round. If they want to supply us with more information we'll look at it, but on the basis of what we've seen we don't like it. None of our team wants to race like this; we're being reduced to just doing exhibition runs."

Graeme Cowin stated, "It's not drag racing, and that's it. I won't be doing it. If it worked, then the NHRA and the IHRA would be doing it. It's a benefit to the promoter but I can't see that it's of value to anyone else."

The long term impact of such a system might be of financial value to a promoter, since the actual number of paired passes to be paid for would be less in the event of up to 10 or 12 entries, but in the event that there's 14 or more entries in a bracket, and with the need to pay for all those in the racing second round then it could actually end up costing more. Pro Stock could well be the first such bracket to test this out.

It certainly also will favour the quicker cars, and it would be unacceptable if any such system discouraged the introduction of new blood into a bracket because they perceived no chance of ever being a winner. There appears to be a lot of water to run under this bridge yet.