DFA123 said:
Dekker_Tifosi said:
you're missing the point. It was not about there not being flat stages. It's about them being 200km long
Dumoulin basically said if you are gonna have flat stages where nothing will happen (no hills or wind) then just make them a bit shorter
There is a lot more that goes into organising a Tour stage than just looking at the distance and obstacles. What if no feasible town could be found to make the route shorter, that was willing to pay all the hosting and police costs, or one that had sufficient accommodation in the surroundings?
Ultimately, for professional cyclists, riding an extra 50km of flat in a peloton is absolutely nothing. For TV viewers it also doesn't change anything - there still isn't going to be any meaningful action before the last 5km. Making them shorter doesn't really serve much purpose - and in fact is less than ideal if it means not starting/finishing at the first choice towns.
Obviously there are organisational considerations, but it grates that so little effort appears to have been made with this stage's route. The thing with the Tour de France is the organisers have more latitude than any other race in the world - towns want to host the race, and are willing to pay for it, and the police do it for free.
Looking on Strava segment explore, there are plenty of small côtes that could have been incorporated into the second half of the route with only slight detours, which would keep it as a sprinter's stage but make the breakaway's chances much more attractive, and you wouldn't even have to make the stage longer if you went through Avranches at the start instead of cutting inland. You could mix it up more and say that the purpose of today and tomorrow is to get the race from La Manche to the Massif Central. The good folks in the race design thread would have no problems creating something interesting.