Boris Said has three top-10s in 10 road courses in Cup racing. Credit: Autostock

Last Lap: Road Rash

Road course ringer: (n) Sports car driving expert that, twice annually, infiltrates the heavier, breathier domain ruled by his stock car brethren in hopes of boosting a Nextel Cup Series team's performance and/or points position.

Boris Said is the most celebrated, though I'm uncertain he qualifies as ringer any longer. (He now runs ovals, too.) Ron Fellows and Scott Pruett are right on Said's tail. Tom Hubert and Chris Cook and several others show up from time-to-time, as well, depending on the number of teams in need of a pick-me-up.

	MARTY SMITH •   E-mail Marty •   Opinion Archive •   Store: 'I Agree With Marty' tee

That's key, here. Pick-me-up.

Road course ringers rarely drive cars fielded specifically for them. Aside from Chip Ganassi Racing, which fields Pruett's road course machine as a fourth entry rather installing him as a replacement for any of its other three drivers, competitive teams in respectable points positions don't hire ringers.

Fledgling teams do. Especially now, when any team inside the top-35 in points is guaranteed a starting position.

The top-35 rule is a comforting haven for most, a burning hell for others. It all depends where one ranks in relation to the 35th points position. Examples: The No. 99 Ford compared to the Nos. 32 and 11 Chevrolets at Sears Point.

Carl Edwards, driver of Roush's 99, is battling for a top-10 slot in the points standings. Therefore, despite the fact that he'd never raced competitively on a road course, he was thrown into the Infineon fire to sink or swim.

He finished 38th. But the experience will be valuable heading into this weekend's Sirius at The Glen.

Bobby Hamilton Jr., meanwhile, turned his seat over to Fellows solely because PPI had fallen outside the top 35 and thus lost the automatic bid into the field each week. For a single-car team with limited resources, a guaranteed spot in the field is a crucial advantage.

According to the team, Hamilton Jr. completely backed the decision. Were Fellows able to lift the team back into the top 35, Hamilton Jr. would, after all, benefit. Fellows finished eighth, but the team was unable to improve on its 37th-place points position.

Meanwhile, Terry Labonte replaced Leffler on a No. 11 bunch that had seesawed in-and-out of the top 35 all season. They entered the race 36th in points. Labonte finished 12th. They ventured home 35th overall in the standings.

Terry Labonte Credit: Autostock

The question is, is it fair to Leffler or any other driver under contract (and in need of seat time) to be unseated for ringers?

Yep.

It's not personal. It's business. Sponsors spend millions. Missing races in today's market doesn't cut it. So young drivers on bad teams suffer. They badly need seat time on road courses, but struggling teams aren't in a position to be patient.

No road course ringer has ever gone to Victory Lane. When I asked a couple of drivers why, they cited car unfamiliarity -- the critical do's and don'ts in bulky Cup cars -- as the major reason. (They also admitted that entering Pruett's world often meant getting schooled. Once again, car familiarity, shifting and braking points. The like.)

Nevertheless, ringers don't win Cup races. That speaks volumes to the adaptive ability of Nextel Cup drivers, who only turn twice two weekends each year. It's too bad that drivers in situations like Hamilton Jr. and Leffler aren't given an opportunity to improve.

(And as most of you already know, Leffler was released from Gibbs on Monday. Labonte will replace him this weekend, and Busch Series drivers J.J. Yeley and Denny Hamlin will take the seat for the remainder of the year.)

LHProp1: What most people are neglecting to consider is that this is a mutually beneficial decision for all parties involved. The drivers who will be temporarily replaced are the ones who are "on the bubble" for being in the top 35 in owners points.

If the regular driver can't quite hack it on the road courses, it's beneficial to the regular driver, the owner, and the ringer because the owner and the ringer make money, and the driver is more than likely to maintain a guaranteed position in the race by staying in the top 35 in owners points.

Jurgen Weber perfectly sums 'er up, here. NASCAR is -- and always will be -- a performance-based business.

It's Git 'R Dun or, well, git.

gogregbiffle: It is wrong to unseat the regular driver in favor of a road ringer.

First, it cheats the driver. If an owner signs a driver for the season then he owes it to the driver to let him drive. If the driver can't perform then replace him permanently and let him hunt for a team that believes in his potential. But don't pay him to race then leave him kicking his heels in the pits.

Second, it cheats the fans. Though it may be news to some, every driver has fans. And those fans buy their race tickets far in advance. Third, it prevents the unseated drivers from improving their weaknesses by denying the experience that would be their best teacher.

So, go ahead and hire a road specialist to work with your drivers. Reward him with a one-race deal in a team car. If he out-qualifies the regular guy and bumps him from the field that's OK -- he earned it. But don't kick the regular driver out of his own car, cheat his fans, and prevent him from learning more about racing.

While Sgt. Meztler's response includes several viable points, he misses the most important point of all: Money doesn't grow on trees. Sure, fielding a subsequent car for a road course specialist is an admirable concept.

But few owners can afford to do so, especially considering that road course machines must be specially prepared and, given the current structure of the Cup schedule, aren't overly cost-conscious.

(Some industry folk even feel NASCAR should investigate adding another road course date to help offset the lofty cost of building the special cars.)

It's huge risk/reward. Say an owner takes two cars, one his full-time machine that's 37th in points, the other a subsequent car for a ringer. Both make the show, share information. Both benefit. But what if the full-time driver proves too slow in qualifying and ringer wrecks. Both go home.

Charlotte is a long, long haul from Sonoma, Calif.

Ron Fellows Credit: Autostock

FBGRacing: Absolutely. Typically, it would seem that the only drivers who are being unseated are those who aren't a real threat to the championship. At that point, it's a business-only decision.

Teams who are suffering in the point standings will sometimes add a road course specialist to their roster with the hopes of notching one in the "Win" column. I don't really see the point in it, however, since if the equipment is no better or worse, a road course specialist will only perform marginally better in a stock car, since they usually have less time in the equipment than the primary driver.

That's not necessarily true, Ferris. Remember, Fellows hopped into Hamilton Jr's ride and ran eighth. That's PPI Motorsports' highest finish -- and only top-10 -- of the 2005 season.

20Stewart02: I think any driver who competes on a regular basis on other tracks, should be required to run at the road course, no matter what they feel about them. Road courses, whether you like them or not, are part of the schedule.

If a driver doesn't feel comfortable with driving road courses, then they need to take one or two of their practice sessions and go to Watkins Glen or Sonoma and test there. To me, it shows how much better a driver is if he is capable of running at the road courses, AS WELL AS the ovals.

Also, an owner needs to be confident that their driver is capable of doing well at Watkins Glen or Sonoma, so it is up to the driver and team to work on their road course cars to make their driver capable of running a good race. Dale Jarrett has said many a time that he doesn't like road courses, but you still see him out there doing his best to have a good race.

Owners shouldn't have a "option" to replace their driver for one or two races, simply because their driver isn't very good at them. The same could be said for those drivers that don't do well at plate races.

Why not have an option to replace a driver there if he's never done well at 'Dega or 'Tona? So, I think if a driver is competing for the Chase, or is a regular in Cup, he MUST run the road courses as well as the oval, period.

Drivers in contention for the Chase will be racing the road courses, whether they like them or not. They're in the hunt for a title. Missing a race would eliminate them from contention.

Once again, owners don't install ringers into competitive team equations. Ringers replace drivers on struggling teams, or teams in need of a driver, like the Nos. 1 and 01 in recent years when their respective drivers were injured.

Edwards is the example, there. He has to learn road racing on the fly. He's in Chase contention. Same for Dale Earnhardt Jr. in recent years. He was neither overly keen on, nor adept at, road racing. But he worked diligently at it and has since molded himself into a fine road course driver.

48isloser: This is another stupid question. If you compare it to any other business or sport. Is it fair to bench your million-dollar quarterback in football because you do not believe he can get the job done?

See how stupid it sounds, and in football you do not have sponsor obligations. I don't mean to sound harsh but isn't it silly to think NASCAR is different than other sports?

The million-dollar quarterback example works for me if based solely on performance, but it's not the least bit silly to think NASCAR is different from other professional sports leagues.

In all actuality, NASCAR is fundamentally different from other sports in several ways. No players union, no salary cap, anonymous contract details, in-house officiating crews, etc. etc.

Whoaaaa. Kurt Busch has signed with another team for 2007 and requested release from Roush Racing for 2006. What the ... ? Sorry folks, duty calls ...

The opinions expressed are solely of the writer.