And tell me if NASCAR is at all like this -- in cycling, different courses have an effect on who it's even possible to see win. There are basically two types of riders -- sprinters and climbers. There's various and sundry other labels, but they could all basically fall on a continuum between those two poles. Sort of like a political spectrum, I guess. The continuum is also, broadly, between heavier and lighter riders, respectively.
Consider the Tour de France. The traditional last stage ends in Paris, and the course is always totally flat -- no hills on it, at least none that would bother any reasonably qualified pro cyclist. The winner of this stage will nearly always be the fastest sprinter in the race. But some days before, the race visits high mountains, where the guy who wins on the last day will be an hour down the road behind the winner. And he knows going in that he's gonna be an hour down the road. Obviously, it's the climber-type riders who excel on these courses.
And there's annual races with courses of various degrees like this throughout the year. Some are for the sprinters, some are for the climbers. Some can go either way depending on how the race itself unfolds. It's one of the reasons I do enjoy cycling as a sport (though it's probably #3 for me, behind volleyball and baseball).
Is car racing at all like that? Do the courses ever play such a crucial role in selecting who even has a chance at winning?