2023 Tour de France route rumors

[Red Rick]

I don't think you'll ever see the TDF get as bad with trying to engineer a specific result again as they did in like, 2009 where they extremely wanted to keep the GC close for the stage 20 Ventoux showdown.

Tour 2012 was way more engineered than 2009

 

[OlavEH]

which everyone would totally have told you was a typical "grinder HC to MTF" "attack-in-the-final-1500m" parcours.

I think people are sometimes a bit too deterministic about routes and climbs - the Giro this year had Blockhaus which ordinarily is as selective as you can get, and yet it wasn't particularly exciting at all. Meanwhile somehow the Vuelta manages to luck its way into successive exciting stages at Formigal, which is about as unremarkable a cat-1 MTF as you can get.

Nah, Galibier is a long, tough and high altitude climb while Granon is one of the toughest MTFs in cycling, is steep from the bottom and finish at almost 2500m. That is really tough and something completely else than a Col de la Loze or a Fedaia MTF where the by far most difficult section is the last kms.

The good Formigal stages were pure coincidence/luck, nothing else. They could have done stages like that every year and not many of them would have ended up with much action.

 

[YavorD]

right and the most memorable long range attacking riding in years came on this stage

which everyone would totally have told you was a typical "grinder HC to MTF" "attack-in-the-final-1500m" parcours.

I think people are sometimes a bit too deterministic about routes and climbs - the Giro this year had Blockhaus which ordinarily is as selective as you can get, and yet it wasn't particularly exciting at all. Meanwhile somehow the Vuelta manages to luck its way into successive exciting stages at Formigal, which is about as unremarkable a cat-1 MTF as you can get.

This isn't to say that parcours don't matter but I do think it matters a bit less than some people might think. The TDF guys have been attempting to engineer exciting racing via the parcours for years now and about the only thing they've successfully done is make it so we don't have to sit through 5 sprint stages in the first week in a row, which is actually a good change.

That stage had the perfect storm. Jumbo's Co-leader was injured (and I think they knew he wasn't good), but still seen as a treat, so they bluffed and sent him long range. Pog went after him and he got carried away.
Neither pacing, neither profile was perfect for such an attacking racing, however the stars aligned and the stage was great. 8 out of 10 times we probably see typical MTF action in this stage.

 

[ice&fire]

That stage had the perfect storm. Jumbo's Co-leader was injured (and I think they knew he wasn't good), but still seen as a treat, so they bluffed and sent him long range. Pog went after him and he got carried away.
Neither pacing, neither profile was perfect for such an attacking racing, however the stars aligned and the stage was great. 8 out of 10 times we probably see typical MTF action in this stage.

The fact is that 2 out of 2 times we've seen action in the penultimate climb

 

[houtdffan]

The fact is that 2 out of 2 times we've seen action in the penultimate climb

and the first time only Lemond and Zimmerman were together at the base of the Grannon

Of course, Lemond proceeded to wheel suck the entire climb...

 

[tobydawq]

That stage had the perfect storm. Jumbo's Co-leader was injured (and I think they knew he wasn't good), but still seen as a treat, so they bluffed and sent him long range. Pog went after him and he got carried away.
Neither pacing, neither profile was perfect for such an attacking racing, however the stars aligned and the stage was great. 8 out of 10 times we probably see typical MTF action in this stage.

This is such a lame excuse.

Formigal 2016 was a perfect storm.

 

[YavorD]

This is such a lame excuse.

Formigal 2016 was a perfect storm.

That's a lame example. Formigal 2016 was straight after the queen stage with over 5500 metres climbing and before a rest day. So you have ingredients for an ambush stage.
Hardly similar to the first mountain stage that comes before an AdH (queen?) stage.

 

[gregrowlerson]

So you can't provid only one example.

You might not be able to provide one example of a climber if they had 150-200 kms of TT's and only one or two mountain stages.

 

[tobydawq]

That's a lame example. Formigal 2016 was straight after the queen stage with over 5500 metres climbing and before a rest day. So you have ingredients for an ambush stage.
Hardly similar to the first mountain stage that comes before an AdH (queen?) stage.

Okay, that's probably right, but I do see many arguments here that goes along the line of your reasoning. That it was pure luck that a given stage turned out to be entertaining when it was CLEARLY extremely poorly designed dog vomit (sorry for the exaggeration).

 

[OlavEH]

You might not be able to provide one example of a climber if they had 150-200 kms of TT's and only one or two mountain stages.

Yeah, that is really a realistic scenario.......

Your claim was that if we had 100+ km of ITT today, many of the current climbers would never be considered as a GC contender. If that was the case, you should be able to provide at least some examples of the which riders would replace these climbers.

The rhetoric of 4 or 5 people here regarding GTs is just ridiculous. The 1990s are considered to be representative for how GTs should be. Only very good or top time trialists are considered to be true GC contenders and climbers not worthy GT winners, and also that a lot of ITT is a prerequisite for a good GT.

 

[YavorD]

Okay, that's probably right, but I do see many arguments here that goes along the line of your reasoning. That it was pure luck that a given stage turned out to be entertaining when it was CLEARLY extremely poorly designed dog vomit (sorry for the exaggeration).

My main argument is such a stage design placed in the same position doesn't deliver (on Galibier) more often than it does. Are you going to argue with that?
All I'm saying is that the design was probably set to deliver a good MTF action, which is perfectly fine for the first (true) mountain stage. I doubt anyone really thought we'll see a group of 2 on top of Galibier after a full on attacks since Telegraphe (?).

 

[tobydawq]

My main argument is such a stage design placed in the same position doesn't deliver (on Galibier) more often than it does. Are you going to argue with that?
All I'm saying is that the design was probably set to deliver a good MTF action, which is perfectly fine for the first (true) mountain stage. I doubt anyone really thought we'll see a group of 2 on top of Galibier after a full on attacks since Telegraphe (?).

I don't know what to expect. Team tactics and the legs of the riders decide on the day. I haven't meticulously tracked all mountain stages in Grand Tours, measured the level of entertainment and distance from finish at first major attack, controlled for weird race circumstances and whatnot and done statistical analysis of which type of stage is most likely to provide entertainment.

And as long as any other hasn't done that either and come to a solid conclusion I'm not going to have much time for "oh, but this was early in the race and there was Alpe d'Huez the following day so it shouldn't have been good" when a stage was good. I find that pretty freaking tiresome.

 

[Netserk]

Better then not to have any expectations and never be positively surprised.

 

[YavorD]

I don't know what to expect. Team tactics and the legs of the riders decide on the day. I haven't meticulously tracked all mountain stages in Grand Tours, measured the level of entertainment and distance from finish at first major attack, controlled for weird race circumstances and whatnot and done statistical analysis of which type of stage is most likely to provide entertainment.

And as long as any other hasn't done that either and come to a solid conclusion I'm not going to have much time for "oh, but this was early in the race and there was Alpe d'Huez the following day so it shouldn't have been good" when a stage was good. I find that pretty freaking tiresome.

Well, I have done to myself some statistical analysis over what you can expect of a certain stage/race based on profile.
Some are nice surprise (See the Tour... basically the whole race).
Some, disappointment (See the Giro).
Some what was expected (mostly in the Vuelta).

So I guess we have to agree on how good the stage was and forgot the reasons behind?

 

[Extinction]

the actual "guy who won a classic tour without really attacking" is probably Evans in 2011 and that was impressive in itself because he had to defend despite having an incredibly terrible team.

also LeMond was kind of tactically boring

I was just reading Fignon's account again, and one does not speek bad of the dead, however, in fairness to Lemond, had he a team like US Postal or Ineos, he would have wipped the floor. First he had to "slay the Badger" (in an imternal war) and then come back from the dead with a subpar team. Then when he had to attack in 1990 it was not boring.

 

[OlavEH]

I don't think you'll ever see the TDF get as bad with trying to engineer a specific result again as they did in like, 2009 where they extremely wanted to keep the GC close for the stage 20 Ventoux showdown.

One of top 3 worst GT routes (at least Tour and Giro) in the 2000s. Along with Tour 2012 and Giro 2004.

 

[gregrowlerson]

One of top 3 worst GT routes (at least Tour and Giro) in the 2000s. Along with Tour 2012 and Giro 2004.

It's strange, because there were some very good ideas in that route. The opening hilly ITT was perfect, and the stage into Le Grand Bornand (also its placement at the end of a mountain block). Verbier also worked a treat. And having Ventoux for a rare penultimate showdown wasn't a bad idea (didn't deter racing because of that, stages 18 and 19 were not possible GC days, but did because of the standings in the race, plus a headwind).

But I've never seen 2 stages in the Pyrenees as badly designed as that. To quote Netserk, they were dog vomit.

And I love dogs.

Regarding our ITT GC riders argument, refer to one of Libertine Seguros' posts on the previous page.

 

[OlavEH]

It's strange, because there were some very good ideas in that route. The opening hilly ITT was perfect, and the stage into Le Grand Bornand (also its placement at the end of a mountain block). Verbier also worked a treat. And having Ventoux for a rare penultimate showdown wasn't a bad idea (didn't deter racing because of that, stages 18 and 19 were not possible GC days, but did because of the standings in the race, plus a headwind).

But I've never seen 2 stages in the Pyrenees as badly designed as that. To quote Netserk, they were dog vomit.

Only one well designed AND really tough mountain stage, the Le Grand Bonard stage. No true GC stages until stage 15. Very backloaded. Total difficulty of route was at the lower end of the scale. There was much more wrong with that route than what was good.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Only one well designed AND really tough mountain stage, the Le Grand Bonard stage. No true GC stages until stage 15. Very backloaded. Total difficulty of route was at the lower end of the scale. There was much more wrong with that route than what was good.

Actually I had forgotten that stage 18 was the long ITT, which was good in itself, but could easily have been a deterrent to attacking racing on stage 17, the one really great mountain stage; so yeah, all around a horrendous route (far worse than 2012 which could have been rectified with 1 or 2 more stages in the Alps).

 

[houtdffan]

It's strange, because there were some very good ideas in that route. The opening hilly ITT was perfect, and the stage into Le Grand Bornand (also its placement at the end of a mountain block). Verbier also worked a treat. And having Ventoux for a rare penultimate showdown wasn't a bad idea (didn't deter racing because of that, stages 18 and 19 were not possible GC days, but did because of the standings in the race, plus a headwind).

But I've never seen 2 stages in the Pyrenees as badly designed as that. To quote Netserk, they were dog vomit.

And I love dogs.

Regarding our ITT GC riders argument, refer to one of Libertine Seguros' posts on the previous page.

Those Pyrenees would be GREAT with Remco vs Pog vs Vingegaard. We'd see the riders actually attack. No Evans performances of dropping out of the lead group on the first climb because losers 2 hours down in GC asked him to

 

[Big Doopie]

Of course, Lemond proceeded to wheel suck the entire climb...

He was required to, considering his teammate was in yellow behind.

However, if you watch it (there’s a Spanish version of the entire climb on YouTube), you will see that he is generally riding right next to Zimmerman, I guess trying to push him to go faster.

 

[Big Doopie]

…also LeMond was kind of tactically boring

Actually tactically brilliant, just not the most aggressive attacking rider to be sure (then again we/he probably missed out on his best two years 1987-88).

No rider has won a TDF with less team support than did Lemond in 1989. (And in 1986, the majority of his team was actually riding against him!)

In 1990, he was the only rider who made up the ten minutes lost on the first stage. And he did so only after Pensec (his teammate in yellow) fell apart on the MTT. This time, with the support of a good team, the stages to St Etienne and Luz Ardiden were absolute tactical masterpieces.

Both his WCs were also absolute tactical masterpieces (again with little to no team). In 1989 when Fignon went on the climb in Chamonix, Lemond knew it was too early. He had ice in his veins and waited. The rest is history.

 

[Jumbo Visma Fan :)]

Those Pyrenees would be GREAT with Remco vs Pog vs Vingegaard. We'd see the riders actually attack. No Evans performances of dropping out of the lead group on the first climb because losers 2 hours down in GC asked him to

No they wouldn’t, they can’t do anything with the endless kilometers of flat after the climbs.

 

[SHAD0W93]

Only time Astana really rode for Contador was in the TTT and that was trying to get Armstrong in yellow.



Is it possible to have a cobbled stage at like 18 or 19 while still keeping mountain stages the last week and finishing in Paris?

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't know what to expect. Team tactics and the legs of the riders decide on the day. I haven't meticulously tracked all mountain stages in Grand Tours, measured the level of entertainment and distance from finish at first major attack, controlled for weird race circumstances and whatnot and done statistical analysis of which type of stage is most likely to provide entertainment.

And as long as any other hasn't done that either and come to a solid conclusion I'm not going to have much time for "oh, but this was early in the race and there was Alpe d'Huez the following day so it shouldn't have been good" when a stage was good. I find that pretty freaking tiresome.

I thought Granon would be good - but that the decisive action from the A-list riders would be confined to the Granon, because of the following stages; action-wise I thought the two stages would be kind of the other way round to what eventually transpired, if you like. Granon is steep enough - and like Alpe d'Huez has its toughest gradients at the bottom - that it would have created separation anyway after a monolith like Galibier north. I thought it would deliver solid action but pacing would get in the way, and was happy to be wrong as it overdelivered. The pacing of mountain stages is often harder to balance for ASO than RCS and Unipublic because the mountains are so geographically clustered in specific areas in France, especially when you get very close locations paying for the stages, like, say, 2016 where Finhaut-Emosson, Le Bettex, Megève and Morzine are all in a relatively small, confined area of the Alps, so having a stage tough enough that the final climb would always create separation the day before the triple-HC climb stage was sound reasoning.

A lot of traceur route design theory and critique is based around the pessimistic starting assumption of a conservative péloton and that it needs to be incentivised into action, which is why a lot of it is inherently negative in nature. This assumption is precisely that, and naturally isn't always the case as evidenced by examples such as Granon 2022, but is nevertheless something that a lot of us want the organisers to legislate for.