Giro d'Italia 2023 Giro D’Italia Route Rumors

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Still, the Vuelta is rarely more than a 7/10 race. The Giro has the potential to be more if RCS design the race better. Spain doesn't have Finestre/Sestriere, Mortirolo/Aprica, Stelvio/Torri di Fraele, Tuscany sterrato stages or multiple climb stages of the same difficulty as the Dolomites. Nor the endless potential for tough medium mountain stages.
No, but the Vuelta is just flatout a better race than the Giro, and while it doesn't have its monsters, it has steep enough climbs to create great racing virtually all across the country which the organizers actually understand to implement, unlike their Italian counterparts. Even TdF with much more limited geography outperforms the Giro in that regard as well.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
since when does the Giro lack for medium mountain stages?

2019 particularly, and maybe 2022 were lighter than them than I would have wanted, but 2020/2021 went for quite a few classics-like parcours. Stage 5 in 2020 was a 230KM medium mountain stage! 2021 was all sorts of classics-like parcours and medium MTFs trying to spice up the first two weeks before the last week mountain bonanza.

I agree that the Giro should do more to try to shake up the GC before the now-trademarked last week but it's not as if this is a 90s tour with all sorts of sprint days and a few TTs in a row before the handful of decisive Alpes stages.
 
Reactions: Monte Serra
The stupid thing is that you can argue that the Appenines lacks huge passes for huge queen stages, and that's why the Giro is backloaded, but it's the perfect reason to put the medium hard MTFs in the first 10 stages.

2015 only had 3 HC climbs. Finestre, Mortirolo and the borderline Monte Ologno. Okay maybe like Saint Pantaleon and Col du Joux but those weren't that relevant.
 
They had Blockhaus and Etna this year. Neither really produced fireworks, you can argue about the parcours but at some point the riders do need to race the course. Etna is something of a meme but is perfectly capable of producing excellent races in 2018 and 2020.
 
Well, maybe the northern hosts of stages are the biggest contributers into the budget, hence why they require that their stages are the most desicive, that limiting RCS into making hard stages early?

Has to be said that even Zomegnan's 2010 and 2011 were backloaded, we were just happy with the racing situations (as we were in this Tour tbh).

Just a wild guess.

P.s. For those saying that Vuelta overperforms the Giro, might have something in common with the fact that Vuelta is still the smallest GT and it's spot in the calendar. Plenty of riders are either not afraid to lose something (as still to me..and probably most of the cycling world 5th in the Giro means more than 5 in the Vuelta) or have nothing to lose, as they either achieved their goals earlier, either have to do something and the Vuelta is their last chance, hence racing more aggressively.
 
Reactions: Tonton
since when does the Giro lack for medium mountain stages?

2019 particularly, and maybe 2022 were lighter than them than I would have wanted, but 2020/2021 went for quite a few classics-like parcours. Stage 5 in 2020 was a 230KM medium mountain stage! 2021 was all sorts of classics-like parcours and medium MTFs trying to spice up the first two weeks before the last week mountain bonanza.

I agree that the Giro should do more to try to shake up the GC before the now-trademarked last week but it's not as if this is a 90s tour with all sorts of sprint days and a few TTs in a row before the handful of decisive Alpes stages.
There are usually hilly and medium mountain stages, but since the options for really tough high mountain stages are limited south of the six most northernmost regions, we're talking about medium mountain stages that are so tough that they could make a certain difference in the GC. There aren't many of those. I would rather prefer a 220-230 km medium mountain stage with 6-7-8 cat 2 and 3 climbs rather than a mono climb MTF to a place like Campitello Matese or San Giancomo.
 
They had Blockhaus and Etna this year. Neither really produced fireworks, you can argue about the parcours but at some point the riders do need to race the course. Etna is something of a meme but is perfectly capable of producing excellent races in 2018 and 2020.
Etna is Etna. I don't super hate it but it makes a big difference if they take a better route on it. I would like to see Erice if you look for a MTF on Sicily.

Blockhaus I dislike because you can also just use it as a pass and do anything like follow up with Muro di Gaurdiagrele or something.

Any of the solid MTFs in Tirreno haven't been used in forever. Petrano, Catria, Nerone nowhere to be seen.

And that's just from only looking at the random *** I see on some limited websites like cyclingcols
 
To be honest, as a Giro over Vuelta guy, I 100% have to side with @Valv.Piti here. All these arguments like the Vuleta being the smallest GT, its spot in the calendar, the places willing to spend stages, all of that are really just bad excuses. To me it honestly feels like there has been a certain development in the Tour and the Vuelta where the organizers have really tried to improve their product by introducing new climbs, making fewer flat stages, going for more thoughtful mountain stage design, etc. Now I disagree with some developments to improve racing, like shortening mountain stages, putting steep ramps at the end of mtf's and those kind of things, but to me it honestly feels like some of these things at least had the right intention. The Giro meanwhile still seems to be in a state where the quality of the racing is completely secondary to the organizers.

I think by now the Giro is the GT with most sprint stages, with the worst designed mountain stages and the worst flow of the route. The only thing still sometimes bailing out the Giro routes is that Italy is so far and away superior in terms of potential climbs that it's practically impossible not to make a good stage design once in a while. Seriously, people are saying the Giro is naturally backloaded because all good climbs are in the Alps but I genuinely think if you completely scratch the Alps from Italy, what's left of the country would still be a better place to design a GT than Spain. Italy is that much better suited for mountain stages. I just wish this will change some time soon because it's honestly a travesty to see what the organizers are doing with what they have.
 
To be honest, as a Giro over Vuelta guy, I 100% have to side with @Valv.Piti here. All these arguments like the Vuleta being the smallest GT, its spot in the calendar, the places willing to spend stages, all of that are really just bad excuses. To me it honestly feels like there has been a certain development in the Tour and the Vuelta where the organizers have really tried to improve their product by introducing new climbs, making fewer flat stages, going for more thoughtful mountain stage design, etc. Now I disagree with some developments to improve racing, like shortening mountain stages, putting steep ramps at the end of mtf's and those kind of things, but to me it honestly feels like some of these things at least had the right intention. The Giro meanwhile still seems to be in a state where the quality of the racing is completely secondary to the organizers.

I think by now the Giro is the GT with most sprint stages, with the worst designed mountain stages and the worst flow of the route. The only thing still sometimes bailing out the Giro routes is that Italy is so far and away superior in terms of potential climbs that it's practically impossible not to make a good stage design once in a while. Seriously, people are saying the Giro is naturally backloaded because all good climbs are in the Alps but I genuinely think if you completely scratch the Alps from Italy, what's left of the country would still be a better place to design a GT than Spain. Italy is that much better suited for mountain stages. I just wish this will change some time soon because it's honestly a travesty to see what the organizers are doing with what they have.
I agree. The Vuelta has less to work with and tend to do pretty decent with even some of the mundane stuff they got because they often get pacing of their mountains right.

Zomegnan would at least sort of build a brand on "just make the mountains epic". Vegnis whole idea is beg Pogacar to come every year.
 
Any of the solid MTFs in Tirreno haven't been used in forever. Petrano, Catria, Nerone nowhere to be seen.
Unless you use at least two of the latter three climbs, there aren't really any of the typical Tirreno MTFs that are especially good and would create much action and bigger gaps than other climbs in the Apenninnes than Blockhaus.

One thing the Giro should do some time is something crazy around Fermo, like on the picture below. A couple of rounds around this loop with 3 muritos in 19 km. The second one is 16 % for 800m and almost 14 % for 900m.

 
Etna is Etna. I don't super hate it but it makes a big difference if they take a better route on it. I would like to see Erice if you look for a MTF on Sicily.

Blockhaus I dislike because you can also just use it as a pass and do anything like follow up with Muro di Gaurdiagrele or something.

Any of the solid MTFs in Tirreno haven't been used in forever. Petrano, Catria, Nerone nowhere to be seen.

And that's just from only looking at the random *** I see on some limited websites like cyclingcols
Catria and Nerone are beasts and with a finish in Urbino on basalt cobbles?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Catria and Nerone are beasts and with a finish in Urbino on basalt cobbles?
Wouldn't call them beasts but they're solid climbs. Appenines don't really need the super big ones if you're gonna end up in any of the Alpine regions by stage 12 anyway. Plus there is always Blockhaus that you can use as a pass.

Anyway I have a new obsession that is never happening. Monte Valloni, joins the main Terminillo road right above the traditional MTF. It's gravel after km 7

 
Reactions: Sandisfan
To be honest, as a Giro over Vuelta guy, I 100% have to side with @Valv.Piti here. All these arguments like the Vuleta being the smallest GT, its spot in the calendar, the places willing to spend stages, all of that are really just bad excuses. To me it honestly feels like there has been a certain development in the Tour and the Vuelta where the organizers have really tried to improve their product by introducing new climbs, making fewer flat stages, going for more thoughtful mountain stage design, etc. Now I disagree with some developments to improve racing, like shortening mountain stages, putting steep ramps at the end of mtf's and those kind of things, but to me it honestly feels like some of these things at least had the right intention. The Giro meanwhile still seems to be in a state where the quality of the racing is completely secondary to the organizers.

I think by now the Giro is the GT with most sprint stages, with the worst designed mountain stages and the worst flow of the route. The only thing still sometimes bailing out the Giro routes is that Italy is so far and away superior in terms of potential climbs that it's practically impossible not to make a good stage design once in a while. Seriously, people are saying the Giro is naturally backloaded because all good climbs are in the Alps but I genuinely think if you completely scratch the Alps from Italy, what's left of the country would still be a better place to design a GT than Spain. Italy is that much better suited for mountain stages. I just wish this will change some time soon because it's honestly a travesty to see what the organizers are doing with what they have.

I do not necessarily disagree with you, but it has to be said that PROBABLY for building a GT the budget matters a lot.
Now, you could totally ditch the Alps and northern Italy and make a great GT route In the south, but does southern cities/stations/municipalities have or want to give the cash required to host a stage?

If Monte Monte Petrano gives 100k, (for example) but Sestriere throws 2 or 300k, than the decision is reasonable. I don't say I like it, but that's how the world works...sadly.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
It has nothing to do with ditching the north, or making the northern stages less impactful. Both would be a travesty and should never happen when making a Giro. The northern part of Italy IS the Giro d' Italia, and if you take that away, I don't really know why I would watch the race. Nothing excites me more than a well designed block of mountains in that exact area in the the world with some of the most legendary and hardest passes in the world, but everything has just been going wrong for the race the last couple of editions.
 
I agree. The Vuelta has less to work with and tend to do pretty decent with even some of the mundane stuff they got because they often get pacing of their mountains right.

Zomegnan would at least sort of build a brand on "just make the mountains epic". Vegnis whole idea is beg Pogacar to come every year.
I don't disagree, but I see the other side, and to me, the letdown with La Vuelta is that it's missing 80% of the country, wasting great opportunities for epic hilly and medium mountain stages. Team presentations in Merida, grandiose :).

Il Giro is the victim of a brain freeze...I can't say which one is worse, or better.
 
The stupid thing is that you can argue that the Appenines lacks huge passes for huge queen stages, and that's why the Giro is backloaded, but it's the perfect reason to put the medium hard MTFs in the first 10 stages.

2015 only had 3 HC climbs. Finestre, Mortirolo and the borderline Monte Ologno. Okay maybe like Saint Pantaleon and Col du Joux but those weren't that relevant.
2009 had a near 8 hour queen stage in the Apennines. One of the hardest stages in recent memory
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
do not necessarily disagree with you, but it has to be said that PROBABLY for building a GT the budget matters a lot.
Now, you could totally ditch the Alps and northern Italy and make a great GT route In the south, but does southern cities/stations/municipalities have or want to give the cash required to host a stage?

If Monte Monte Petrano gives 100k, (for example) but Sestriere throws 2 or 300k, than the decision is reasonable. I don't say I like it, but that's how the world works...sadly.
Why not both? If Petrano or the region there is willing to pay a for a stage finish, you could easily include this instead of a flatter or (easy) medium mountain stage.

The main problem comes when they pile together all the 3-4 toughest stages the last week and at the same time only have underwhelming MTFs the first two weeks. The problem is usually bigger if they don't use the Western Alps in Piemonte or Aosta, which they don't do every year since the options there are more limited than the Eastern Alps, since then you have to do most of the two first weeks in the Apennines. If they don't add some of the few big climbs there, or at least do a couple of big medium mountain stages, we get the problem we discuss here.

Right now the route for next year seems awful. Underwhelming MTFs the first two weeks, backloaded, a really bad penultimate stage with the Lussari MTT and none of the big and mythical climbs in the north, unless perhaps Giau in the Tre Cime stage. But none Finestre, Mortirolo, Stelvio, Gavia, Fauniera, Fedaia, etc.
 
And while some of the design surely is about money, it's far from the whole explanation. The diffence in design depending on who is the head honcho clearly shows that much is deliberate choice, just as it was when the Vuelta changed from a few big mountain stages to a much larger numbers of stages with mono climb MTFs and murito finishes. But for the Giro the chance for variation and great stages are nearly unlimited. A good Giro can contain at least most or all of the type of stages mentioned below:
  • Big medium mountain stage in higher mountains. Bagno di Romagna stages are a good example.
  • Tough medium mountain stage in shorter and steeper climbs like the Torino stage this year.
  • Murito madness like in the Tirreno.
  • One or two big MTFs like Blockhaus, Bondone, Siusi, Montecampione, etc.
  • At least one (preferably two) of the many good big/small climb combos. There are at least closer to 10 of these in Italy.
  • A proper big climb, descent finish, from like climbs like Grappa, Bondone, Fauniere, Giau, etc.
  • A long and brutal 200+ km multiple climb stage. Like in the Dolomites, Aosta or something including the climbs around Bormio.
The rumours for next year suggest it could include a big MTF stage and perhaps a descent finish from Grappa, but probably not the long and brutal 200+ km stage, the big/small climb combo, or the murito stage. Medium mountain stages is impossible to say at this time. But these types of stages are probably also the easiest to create. They finish in locations suitable for tough and good medium mountain stages at least a couple of times year version. Italy is loaded with possibilites for these stages.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
2020 had its first serious mountain stage on stage 15 and had 3 enormous mountain stages plus the hardest medium mountain stage of the race plus a TT all in the last week.
To be honest, as a Giro over Vuelta guy, I 100% have to side with @Valv.Piti here. All these arguments like the Vuleta being the smallest GT, its spot in the calendar, the places willing to spend stages, all of that are really just bad excuses. To me it honestly feels like there has been a certain development in the Tour and the Vuelta where the organizers have really tried to improve their product by introducing new climbs, making fewer flat stages, going for more thoughtful mountain stage design, etc. Now I disagree with some developments to improve racing, like shortening mountain stages, putting steep ramps at the end of mtf's and those kind of things, but to me it honestly feels like some of these things at least had the right intention. The Giro meanwhile still seems to be in a state where the quality of the racing is completely secondary to the organizers.

I think by now the Giro is the GT with most sprint stages, with the worst designed mountain stages and the worst flow of the route. The only thing still sometimes bailing out the Giro routes is that Italy is so far and away superior in terms of potential climbs that it's practically impossible not to make a good stage design once in a while. Seriously, people are saying the Giro is naturally backloaded because all good climbs are in the Alps but I genuinely think if you completely scratch the Alps from Italy, what's left of the country would still be a better place to design a GT than Spain. Italy is that much better suited for mountain stages. I just wish this will change some time soon because it's honestly a travesty to see what the organizers are doing with what they have.
2020 was great. Etna saw serious racing and proper gaps on stage 3. More than 3/4 of the TTing was before the last week. There was a grand total of 3 flat stages, the latter of which always favoured the break (two additional stages were won by Demare). Other than having Madonna di Campiglio the day before Stelvio, the pacing was great. It was a great route (especially as it was meant to be) that delivered great racing. I don't care the least that it was "backloaded".

I obviously agree that Tre Cime on stage 19 with Monte Lussari MTT on stage 20 is bad and is bound to block the race. I gave this year's route a lot of *** before the race too. But I think it's wrong to criticise 2020 and 2021 for being backloaded. And I think it's wrong to criticise the Giro for not being the Vuelta. Criticise it on its own terms. The first half will always be light on mountain stages, what matters is the right distribution during the second half. 2015 didn't see gaps between Contador and Aru before the uphill sprint on stage 12 and proper gaps before the ITT on stage 14. So what?
 
Last edited:
2020 was great. Etna saw serious racing and proper gaps on stage 3. More than 3/4 of the TTing was before the last week. There was a grand total of 3 flat stages, the latter of which always favoured the break (two additional stages were won by Demare). Other than having Madonna di Campiglio the day before Stelvio, the pacing was great. It was a great route (especially as it was meant to be) that delivered great racing. I don't care the least that it was "backloaded".

I obviously agree that Tre Cime on stage 19 with Monte Lussari MTT on stage 20 is bad and is bound to block the race. I gave this year's route a lot of *** before the race too. But I think it's wrong to criticise 2020 and 2021 for being backloaded. And I think it's wrong to criticise the Giro for not being the Vuelta. Criticise it on its own terms. The first half will always be light on mountain stages, what matters is the right distribution during the second half. 2015 didn't see gaps between Contador and Aru before the uphill sprint on stage 12 and proper gaps before the ITT on stage 14. So what?
I suppose the 2020 Giro using possibly the best Etna "side" does redeem the route a little bit (just like the gravel stage in 2021) but even if it kicked off the gc battle early that battle was basically dead until they reached the Alps which they did on the penultimate weekend. Yeah the racing in the Alps was at least good but I still think that race would have benefited massively from being less backloaded.

And just to make this clear, I don't want the Giro to be the Vuelta. What I was trying to say is that having less good options forced the Vuelta to develop its own character which is, don't do big mountain stages, do lots of small ones with steep finishes instead. And it works.

The Giro meanwhile doesn't seem to have much of an idea what it wants to be. Why isn't it a thing that there is an annual gravel stage and an annual murito madness stage? Why do we have to cross our fingers for a single decent medium mountain stage every year? The Giro could absolutely say, we won't do tons of stages in the Alps but instead we do 3 just three but those will be seriously big. Something like that is what I would hope for
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts