2023 Tour de France route rumors

[OlavEH]

Btw, even if things definitely could be done better, I think there is some positive signs in Tour design with the last couple of routes. From 2012 and onwards, they seemed a bit too inspired by the Vuelta, and adding steep ramps on top of already existing climbs. Especailly Super Belles Filles and Peyragudes, but also Col de la Loze as a MTF and Portet (although the two latter are better because Loze can also be used as a pass and Portet is possible the toughest MTF in France). This combined with frequent use of Alpe d'Huez, those 20 km, 6 % MTFs in the Tarentaise valley and usually underwhelming decents finishes in the Pyreenees, the routes in these years were pretty mediocre.

But now there are signs for the better. This year we had the inclusion of Spandelles as a link between Aubisque and Hautacam in addition to the return of Granon. Next year they at least use Loze as a pass and have included the Platzerwesel-Petit Ballon combo in Vosges. Both of those stages could have been designed even better, but it is progress from many of the designs the later years. Hopefully they could take it up another level later, although I don't expect them to do what we're asking for in this forum.

 

[Mayomaniac]

If the rumours about a Nice finish in 2024 is correct, the southern Alps/Mercantour should really be used the last weekend. On the last Friday or (Saturday) a stage like you have proposed there or something ending with Cayolle-Bonette-Auron. Then followed by a stage from Isola to Nice via Saint-Martin, Turini, Braus, La Turbie and Eze. That could actutally also be the final stage of the Tour if they are willing to do something else than a sprint stage or a ITT.

Last weekend I made a list of 10 climbs or combos of climbs that should be used in the Tour and/or are good possibilites for Tour mountain stages that creates big gaps. All of the 10 are more or less likely and have been used in some kind of way the later years (although not always the best version of the climb/combos), except the big Mercantour climbs. A Nice 2024 finish would be the perfect opportunity to use them.

One can dream.
Cayolle-Bonette-Auron sounds like an awesome and hard stage to me. Super-Sauze after Bonette from South is another climb that I'd like to see (2008 style with Lombarde before it would be my favourite option).

 

[OlavEH]

One can dream.
Cayolle-Bonette-Auron sounds like an awesome and hard stage to me. Super-Sauze after Bonette from South is another climb that I'd like to see (2008 style with Lombarde before it would be my favourite option).

Other good climbs or innovations in the Tour I believe we will see several times in the Tour. Grand Colombier is now frequently used. Loze will be used for the second time next year. And will probably be used again somehow when they are finished improving the road over Tougnete. And I'm pretty sure that Granon will used again. But since the southern part of the Alps is pretty scarcely populated, I don't think we'll see these very often. Allos and Pra Loup was used in a underwhemling stage a decade ago. Bonette once after 1993. And Cayolle not since the 70s. I will be very suprised if we see these climbs any more than perhaps once each decade. That's why I hope they take advantage of this opportunity if the Tour actually finish in Nice.

 

[gavia88]

Btw, even if things definitely could be done better, I think there is some positive signs in Tour design with the last couple of routes. From 2012 and onwards, they seemed a bit too inspired by the Vuelta, and adding steep ramps on top of already existing climbs. Especailly Super Belles Filles and Peyragudes, but also Col de la Loze as a MTF and Portet (although the two latter are better because Loze can also be used as a pass and Portet is possible the toughest MTF in France). This combined with frequent use of Alpe d'Huez, those 20 km, 6 % MTFs in the Tarentaise valley and usually underwhelming decents finishes in the Pyreenees, the routes in these years were pretty mediocre.

But now there are signs for the better. This year we had the inclusion of Spandelles as a link between Aubisque and Hautacam in addition to the return of Granon. Next year they at least use Loze as a pass and have included the Platzerwesel-Petit Ballon combo in Vosges. Both of those stages could have been designed even better, but it is progress from many of the designs the later years. Hopefully they could take it up another level later, although I don't expect them to do what we're asking for in this forum.

well, there are signs for the better, but also, signs for the worse. Since Gouvenou joined, routes definitely has been more creative:

positive trends:
-more interesting stages during the whole tour (less obvious sprint stages in a row)
-avoiding to many uninteresting and unimporting stages after each other (last editions you saw rarely more than 2 flat stages in a row)
-better use of medium mountain (every year a few examples), while in the Armstrong area, medium mountain with GC relevance barely exists.
-courage to add cobble stones (during Gouvenou the number of cobble stone stages are almost on 80's level again), while they have been avoid for about 20 years
-compared to again the end of the 90's and the Armstrong area, Gouvenou add at least once in a while some newly introduced climbs
-the courage to use mountains in the beginning of the tour (see nice 2020 or next year bilboa)

negative trends:
-TT almost disappeared (not everybody on the forum mind, but still)
-pyrenees are uninspiring as ever (repetition all over) (introduction of 1 climb last year didn't change so much at the general picture)
-stage length is decreasing year by year. I don't mind to see short stages. But they should be compensated by a few test of real endurance)
-more spreading of dificuties over the stages, but also softer moutain stages in general
-to much focus on final climb of the stage. I don't see a trend in which Gouvenou likes to trigger 'longer' range attacks. There are always a few possibilities per tour, but not in a way that I see a trend towards putting extra opportunities. HC cols has been used as finish, like Tourmalet, Izoard, Grand Colombier, Loze, while they should be used as a pass. The introduction of Portet in the pyrenees and the come back of the Puy the Dome. The short steep ramp at the end of peyragudes. The overuse of Planche the Belle filles and introduction of the super planche. Even next year, with Loze and Joux Plane, they maybe are not MTF'es, but it's all about the last climb of the stage. Focus is on some gimmick, a famous name, something to sell, but most of all on the final climb. It's not the Vuelta, Gouvenou is not avoiding hard stages completely. However, with Gouvenou we barely see hard - soft mountain combi's. Or at least the last climb of the day, not being the most dificult.

So, I don't think that suddenly the flaws disappear from Gouvenou's routes. I clearly see a difference between Pescheux and Gouvenou. And it improved for the better, yes. But within the Gouvenou area, I don't share so much of your optimism, that from the 'currenlty already improved level' the next years the route will keep getting better and better, with less mistakes. This is how he makes his route. The last routes clearly shows what's Gouvenou's style in designing. One year will be a bit better, the other a bit worse. But more or less we will get more of this. So, we don't have to be affraid to have suddenly have a flat first week. Or a week of boredom in the middle as we had in the past. If the tour start in the north I'm confident he put in at least some afford to use the terrain of the area in a decent way. Or the other way arround, when starting in a mountainous area, he will not avoid as hard as possible any moutain, he will use them. But we shouldn't suddenly be expecting him to create perfectly designed moutain stages that triggers the best racing, instead of selling gimmicks (super planche), or having a finish that is famous (alpe d'huez, tourmalet, izoard, ect), or something that should keep the race 'close' to the end.

 

[Escarabajo]

well, there are signs for the better, but also, signs for the worse. Since Gouvenou joined, routes definitely has been more creative:

positive trends:
-more interesting stages during the whole tour (less obvious sprint stages in a row)
-avoiding to many uninteresting and unimporting stages after each other (last editions you saw rarely more than 2 flat stages in a row)
-better use of medium mountain (every year a few examples), while in the Armstrong area, medium mountain with GC relevance barely exists.
-courage to add cobble stones (during Gouvenou the number of cobble stone stages are almost on 80's level again), while they have been avoid for about 20 years
-compared to again the end of the 90's and the Armstrong area, Gouvenou add at least once in a while some newly introduced climbs
-the courage to use mountains in the beginning of the tour (see nice 2020 or next year bilboa)

negative trends:
-TT almost disappeared (not everybody on the forum mind, but still)
-pyrenees are uninspiring as ever (repetition all over) (introduction of 1 climb last year didn't change so much at the general picture)
-stage length is decreasing year by year. I don't mind to see short stages. But they should be compensated by a few test of real endurance)
-more spreading of dificuties over the stages, but also softer moutain stages in general
-to much focus on final climb of the stage. I don't see a trend in which Gouvenou likes to trigger 'longer' range attacks. There are always a few possibilities per tour, but not in a way that I see a trend towards putting extra opportunities. HC cols has been used as finish, like Tourmalet, Izoard, Grand Colombier, Loze, while they should be used as a pass. The introduction of Portet in the pyrenees and the come back of the Puy the Dome. The short steep ramp at the end of peyragudes. The overuse of Planche the Belle filles and introduction of the super planche. Even next year, with Loze and Joux Plane, they maybe are not MTF'es, but it's all about the last climb of the stage. Focus is on some gimmick, a famous name, something to sell, but most of all on the final climb. It's not the Vuelta, Gouvenou is not avoiding hard stages completely. However, with Gouvenou we barely see hard - soft mountain combi's. Or at least the last climb of the day, not being the most dificult.

So, I don't think that suddenly the flaws disappear from Gouvenou's routes. I clearly see a difference between Pescheux and Gouvenou. And it improved for the better, yes. But within the Gouvenou area, I don't share so much of your optimism, that from the 'currenlty already improved level' the next years the route will keep getting better and better, with less mistakes. This is how he makes his route. The last routes clearly shows what's Gouvenou's style in designing. One year will be a bit better, the other a bit worse. But more or less we will get more of this. So, we don't have to be affraid to have suddenly have a flat first week. Or a week of boredom in the middle as we had in the past. If the tour start in the north I'm confident he put in at least some afford to use the terrain of the area in a decent way. Or the other way arround, when starting in a mountainous area, he will not avoid as hard as possible any moutain, he will use them. But we shouldn't suddenly be expecting him to create perfectly designed moutain stages that triggers the best racing, instead of selling gimmicks (super planche), or having a finish that is famous (alpe d'huez, tourmalet, izoard, ect), or something that should keep the race 'close' to the end.

Good summary. I pretty much agree with most of your points. About the last point (bold), I think they are trying to remedie that problem next year. I think they will keep trying to trigger long range attacks in future routes. Everything that helps the TV spectacle they will be up for it.

Two things they won't try hard to change. The long and hard stages or the extra kilometers of TT. It looks like that trend will continue.

I was watching the Tour 89 yesterday and to be honest the ending made up a lot of excitement. Back in those days we were used to watching only the last hour or couple of hours of racing. So nobody minded the extra long stages but the cyclists. Being flat or not didn't make the difference. So if there was excitement in the last hour that was all we cared for. Today that is very difficult to do because TV now shows from kilometer cero. People starts racing from the beginning today. I was telling by wife that in my life I never dreamed of watching all the starts of most of the stages just for the fun of the attacks and who was going in the breakaway or an early umbush. Never in my life. And almost never happened before. Or at least never got to watch it. So I don't think that the trend of long stages will come back soon. As for the Giro is concerned, those long stages could backfire easily in today's racing. It could tame the cyclists a bit to the point of boredom to the fans. I love the Giro route but I won't be surprised if some of the stages result in a dud.
My 2 cents!

Below the stage I was watching.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c42BNemoBI8

 

[OlavEH]

-pyrenees are uninspiring as ever (repetition all over) (introduction of 1 climb last year didn't change so much at the general picture)
-stage length is decreasing year by year. I don't mind to see short stages. But they should be compensated by a few test of real endurance)
-more spreading of dificuties over the stages, but also softer moutain stages in general
-to much focus on final climb of the stage. I don't see a trend in which Gouvenou likes to trigger 'longer' range attacks. There are always a few possibilities per tour, but not in a way that I see a trend towards putting extra opportunities. HC cols has been used as finish, like Tourmalet, Izoard, Grand Colombier, Loze, while they should be used as a pass. The introduction of Portet in the pyrenees and the come back of the Puy the Dome. The short steep ramp at the end of peyragudes. The overuse of Planche the Belle filles and introduction of the super planche. Even next year, with Loze and Joux Plane, they maybe are not MTF'es, but it's all about the last climb of the stage. Focus is on some gimmick

I partially agree there, but still think there are some positive signs since 2020 compared to the former years.

First, regarding the Pyreenees, it's about the same climbs and MTFs now as in the 1990s and 2000s. It's Peyresourde, Aspin, Tourmalet and Aubisque in addition to Hautacam, Luz Ardiden, Pla d'Adet (now Col de Portet instead), etc. The French Basque country has never been used much neither then or now. They used Ariege a bit more then than now. From 2002 to 2015 either Plateau de Bonascre or Plateau de Beille was used as a MTF 9 times. After 2015 neither has been used. But they have included Peguere, Spandelles and paved to Col de Portet the last years. It isn't much, but at least something. The Pyrenees could and should be better, but I actually think the Alps are further from being used at its potential than the Pyrenees.

For length of stages and too much focus on the last climb, the latter has always been the case in the Tour. Both earlier and in the later years. The main negative trend start started about 2012 and continued for some years, were that they had both shorter mountain stages and more climbs where the steepest part of the climb were on the last kms. Really a double negative impact. Shorter mountain stages really started in 2013 with a 125 km stage to Semnoz. And continued the following years with stages in 125, 111, 101, 109, 65, 111, 127 and 60 km. The worst years were 2018 and 2019 with the 65 km stage to Col d'Portet and the 60 km stage to Val Thorens.

Since then it has gotten a bit better. Still no longer 200+ km mountain stages, the new standard length since 2020 seems to be between 140 and 170 km. And some new inclusions are better than earlier. Spandelles to link Aubisque and Hautacam, return of Granon, Loze as a pass is better than Super Belles Filles, La Toussuiere, and Peyragudes. Or one of the very underwhelming descent finishes in the Pyrenees. They still have a way to go, but comparing to the previous years, it is one level up.

 

[gavia88]

I partially agree there, but still think there are some positive signs since 2020 compared to the former years.

First, regarding the Pyreenees, it's about the same climbs and MTFs now as in the 1990s and 2000s. It's Peyresourde, Aspin, Tourmalet and Aubisque in addition to Hautacam, Luz Ardiden, Pla d'Adet (now Col de Portet instead), etc. The French Basque country has never been used much neither then or now. They used Ariege a bit more then than now. From 2002 to 2015 either Plateau de Bonascre or Plateau de Beille was used as a MTF 9 times. After 2015 neither has been used. But they have included Peguere, Spandelles and paved to Col de Portet the last years. It isn't much, but at least something. The Pyrenees could and should be better, but I actually think the Alps are further from being used at its potential than the Pyrenees.

For length of stages and too much focus on the last climb, the latter has always been the case in the Tour. Both earlier and in the later years. The main negative trend start started about 2012 and continued for some years, were that they had both shorter mountain stages and more climbs where the steepest part of the climb were on the last kms. Really a double negative impact. Shorter mountain stages really started in 2013 with a 125 km stage to Semnoz. And continued the following years with stages in 125, 111, 101, 109, 65, 111, 127 and 60 km. The worst years were 2018 and 2019 with the 65 km stage to Col d'Portet and the 60 km stage to Val Thorens.

Since then it has gotten a bit better. Still no longer 200+ km mountain stages, the new standard length since 2020 seems to be between 140 and 170 km. And some new inclusions are better than earlier. Spandelles to link Aubisque and Hautacam, return of Granon, Loze as a pass is better than Super Belles Filles, La Toussuiere, and Peyragudes. Or one of the very underwhelming descent finishes in the Pyrenees. They still have a way to go, but comparing to the previous years, it is one level up.

well, The fact that they use 125, 111, 101, 109, 65, 111, 127 and 60 km. short stages for me is not a problem at all. But they use them wrongly.

• infortunately there is the myth that shorter automatically means 'more explosive' and 'more attractive'
• already many times explained by LS, a long hard stage + short stage combo could work really nicely, however they are many times not used in this order
• short stages are introduces to make it more 'human' (less doping) (while the sports attractive point is attrition)
• short stages are introduced to make live covarage be bearable. However, they use it more in a way to remove the boring middle part of the race than to create the possibility to really see chaos. Let me explain. Long stages, normally still starts with the fight for the break. Nowadays that takes between 25 and 50 km before the break is free. Let say 40. On a 140 km stage this is already a significant part of the race. Than there is the middle part of the race. Normally a status quo. After the break gets a few minutes, the peloton starts riding at the same speed. On a short stage this phase is shorter. Normally this is not the most attractive phase of the stage. With reducing the total km they reduce the boring part.

Some examples of recent short stages in the tour:
2019 Tourmalet:

2018 Portet:

Instead of using this ultra short length stages to have an entertaining stage from start till finish, they still focus on the finish. So phase 1: getting the breakaway, phase 2: status quo, phase 3: final and main difficulty of the day and only than GC action possible.

Instead with < 100 km stages, you could also do something like Phase 1: HC climb, phase 2: 1st climb, phase 3: 2 cat climb. Especially after a longer hard stage with a big mountain finish the day before, this could create chaos.

* correction: I don't mind short stages as part of variation within a grand tour. I prefer to have a 80 and 110 kilometer stage combined with a 220 and a 249 km stage, than all stages between 170-180 km.

 

[Red Rick]

well, The fact that they use 125, 111, 101, 109, 65, 111, 127 and 60 km. short stages for me is not a problem at all. But they use them wrongly.

• infortunately there is the myth that shorter automatically means 'more explosive' and 'more attractive'
• already many times explained by LS, a long hard stage + short stage combo could work really nicely, however they are many times not used in this order
• short stages are introduces to make it more 'human' (less doping) (while the sports attractive point is attrition)
• short stages are introduced to make live covarage be bearable. However, they use it more in a way to remove the boring middle part of the race than to create the possibility to really see chaos. Let me explain. Long stages, normally still starts with the fight for the break. Nowadays that takes between 25 and 50 km before the break is free. Let say 40. On a 140 km stage this is already a significant part of the race. Than there is the middle part of the race. Normally a status quo. After the break gets a few minutes, the peloton starts riding at the same speed. On a short stage this phase is shorter. Normally this is not the most attractive phase of the stage. With reducing the total km they reduce the boring part.

Some examples of recent short stages in the tour:
2019 Tourmalet:

2018 Portet:

Instead of using this ultra short length stages to have an entertaining stage from start till finish, they still focus on the finish. So phase 1: getting the breakaway, phase 2: status quo, phase 3: final and main difficulty of the day and only than GC action possible.

Instead with < 100 km stages, you could also do something like Phase 1: HC climb, phase 2: 1st climb, phase 3: 2 cat climb. Especially after a longer hard stage with a big mountain finish the day before, this could create chaos.

* correction: I don't mind short stages as part of variation within a grand tour. I prefer to have a 80 and 110 kilometer stage combined with a 220 and a 249 km stage, than all stages between 170-180 km.

Yeah the disturbing part is they have honestly even regressed in how they use the short stages or how well they do their vanilla stages. Foix 2017 was fine despite being underwhelming. In 2019 they did Prat d'Albis after Mur de Peguere and it's a simple but very nice combo of Cat 1 climbs.

The overall trend is very concerning.

• Short stages aren't used with an idea of being chaotic, they're literally the default of "Let's not even try and just get to the MYTHICAL MAUNTIN FINNISH asap"
• Long mountain stages don't even happen by accident anymore.
• They actively avoid having more than 3 Cat 1 or higher climbs in a day. Like 3 consecutive climbs is the absolute maximum.
• They use attrition the wrong way, putting in big name climbs just to finish on the steepest climb as a MTF.

As recently as 2019 they actually tried to do shorter stages better with stuff like Tignes after Iseran, though I don't remember how long Val Thorens was supposed to be. In 2020 I really ahve to give credit for stage 18. But 2021 and 2022 and 2023 have been dire for mountain stage design. Even the stages that turned out brilliantly are happy coincidences from the same formula where the extreme carnage is mostly thanks to thermobiblical war between Jumbo Visma and Pogacar.

Granon is gonna be solely about the MTF on most days.
Hautacam is all about the MTF on most days
Peyragudes didn't really see a committed attack by Pogacar and it was just a WTF change of choo choo train.

 

[gavia88]

Yeah the disturbing part is they have honestly even regressed in how they use the short stages or how well they do their vanilla stages. Foix 2017 was fine despite being underwhelming. In 2019 they did Prat d'Albis after Mur de Peguere and it's a simple but very nice combo of Cat 1 climbs.

The overall trend is very concerning.

• Short stages aren't used with an idea of being chaotic, they're literally the default of "Let's not even try and just get to the MYTHICAL MAUNTIN FINNISH asap"
• Long mountain stages don't even happen by accident anymore.
• They actively avoid having more than 3 Cat 1 or higher climbs in a day. Like 3 consecutive climbs is the absolute maximum.
• They use attrition the wrong way, putting in big name climbs just to finish on the steepest climb as a MTF.

As recently as 2019 they actually tried to do shorter stages better with stuff like Tignes after Iseran, though I don't remember how long Val Thorens was supposed to be. In 2020 I really ahve to give credit for stage 18. But 2021 and 2022 and 2023 have been dire for mountain stage design. Even the stages that turned out brilliantly are happy coincidences from the same formula where the extreme carnage is mostly thanks to thermobiblical war between Jumbo Visma and Pogacar.

Granon is gonna be solely about the MTF on most days.
Hautacam is all about the MTF on most days
Peyragudes didn't really see a committed attack by Pogacar and it was just a WTF change of choo choo train.

yes, last year was really something special. Granon and Hautacam were both the most dificult climbs of the day, but JV and Pogacar turned the race in something special. Both Granon and Hautacam are hard climbs, but not extremely more dificult than Galibier and Aubisque/ Spandelles. So, although not perfect, the designs were not hopeless from an action perspective. Better at least than next year. Funny part is that the stage that was created to have 'longer' range attacks, was soft pedaled (alpe d'huez). (must say a combo of Galibier South, Croix de Fer and Alpe d'Huez will not work in most cases)

Val Thorens was supposed to climb Roseland and Tra (both climb will feature next year before the Loze). So, most likely would have been dificult for long range attacks either.

The Prat d'Albis was a nice combi of 3x 1st category with also Agnes. That combo is actually that good, that if you start from Luchon an add Mentee (from the steeper side), Portet d'Aspet, Col de la Core and Col de latrape before you have a proper queen stage, without using 1x HC in the whole stage. Even without Mentee and starting from Saint-Gaudens would be great. And the day before Port de Bales + Superbagneres combi.

 

[OlavEH]

es, last year was really something special. Granon and Hautacam were both the most dificult climbs of the day, but JV and Pogacar turned the race in something special. Both Granon and Hautacam are hard climbs, but not extremely more dificult than Galibier and Aubisque/ Spandelles. So, although not perfect, the designs were not hopeless from an action perspective. Better at least than next year. Funny part is that the stage that was created to have 'longer' range attacks, was soft pedaled (alpe d'huez). (must say a combo of Galibier South, Croix de Fer and Alpe d'Huez will not work in most cases)

Val Thorens was supposed to climb Roseland and Tra (both climb will feature next year before the Loze). So, most likely would have been dificult for long range attacks either.

The Prat d'Albis was a nice combi of 3x 1st category with also Agnes. That combo is actually that good, that if you start from Luchon an add Mentee (from the steeper side), Portet d'Aspet, Col de la Core and Col de latrape before you have a proper queen stage, without using 1x HC in the whole stage. Even without Mentee and starting from Saint-Gaudens would be great. And the day before Port de Bales + Superbagneres combi.

Usually we want two things. Just about everyone wants action and long range attacks. And a vast majority probably also wants mountain stages that creates big gaps. In the Giro this is best taken care of by using the many good big/small climb combos. The best of these combos almost guruantee attacks from 20-30 kms out or more and huge gaps.

The same isn't the case for France and the Tour. The best of these combos actually used are probably Romme-Colombiere, Pailheres-Bonascre and Iseran-Tignes. In addition to not used options like Madeleine-Valmorel and Bonette-Auron. None of these comes close to the best options in the Giro. There are probably close to 10 combos in Italy which better gives incentives for long range attacks better than the best in France (before the paving of Loze on both sides). So it might happen with action and attacks from at least 20-30 km out, but it is less likely than using the best of these combos in the Giro.

So if you want big gaps, I think a big MTF preceeded by other big climbs in several cases may be just as good as the combos mentioned above. Galibier-Granon (and even Madeleine or Iseran first) and Aubisque-Spandelles-Hautacam would be good examples of this. Col de Portet via Aubisque, Tourmalet and Aspin may also work. In most cases stages like this woudn't have any action before the final climb, but then it could really explode with big gaps.

 

[Bolder]

."..there is the myth that shorter automatically means 'more explosive' and 'more attractive' "

I dunno, by their very construction they almost automatically mean "more explosive." Whether that plays out till the end is not a given, of course.

I'm a huge fan of one short, hard stage per GT. I really enjoy those parts of any race where you have groups of riders up and down the road (especially why I love the last 1/3 of P-R), when any outcome is still possible. Even if by the last 20-30 km things settle down. What I don't love is long, hard, mountain stages where its the predictable breakaway at 6", then favorites marking each other until the final climb where it's a pure show of strength. My impression is that that short stages encourage riskier tactics.

 

[OlavEH]

I'm a huge fan of one short, hard stage per GT. I really enjoy those parts of any race where you have groups of riders up and down the road (especially why I love the last 1/3 of P-R), when any outcome is still possible. Even if by the last 20-30 km things settle down. What I don't love is long, hard, mountain stages where its the predictable breakaway at 6", then favorites marking each other until the final climb where it's a pure show of strength. My impression is that that short stages encourage riskier tactics.

Pretty accurate. And very typical for stages to Alpe d'Huez, Plateau de Beille, Peyragudes, the so far used versions to Grand Colombier and all those 20 km, 6 % MTFs in the Alps. And it is fine with a couple of stages like this each version, but not when these and underwhelming descent finishes dominates the mountain stages.

 

[gavia88]

Usually we want two things. Just about everyone wants action and long range attacks. And a vast majority probably also wants mountain stages that creates big gaps. In the Giro this is best taken care of by using the many good big/small climb combos. The best of these combos almost guruantee attacks from 20-30 kms out or more and huge gaps.

The same isn't the case for France and the Tour. The best of these combos actually used are probably Romme-Colombiere, Pailheres-Bonascre and Iseran-Tignes. In addition to not used options like Madeleine-Valmorel and Bonette-Auron. None of these comes close to the best options in the Giro. There are probably close to 10 combos in Italy which better gives incentives for long range attacks better than the best in France (before the paving of Loze on both sides). So it might happen with action and attacks from at least 20-30 km out, but it is less likely than using the best of these combos in the Giro.

So if you want big gaps, I think a big MTF preceeded by other big climbs in several cases may be just as good as the combos mentioned above. Galibier-Granon (and even Madeleine or Iseran first) and Aubisque-Spandelles-Hautacam would be good examples of this. Col de Portet via Aubisque, Tourmalet and Aspin may also work. In most cases stages like this woudn't have any action before the final climb, but then it could really explode with big gaps.

well, it's not neccesseraly about big gaps, it's about great racing. So, a design that trigger the riders to do something before the last 3 km of the stage. If in the end we had 2 hours of great racing, but the difference between the top riders are small, is not a problem at all of course. The problem is if you want to keep the differences small by design. So, 2 hours of great racing is not possible at all.

I think you are underestimating the possibilities in the tour de France to great such designs. You yourself gave already some great examples and there are many more. Some examples of what they could do with climbs that will be used in 2023, but than in a way to enforce racing (of course this are example taken out of the context, it's not meant as a one or one replacement, but just as examples that enforcing better racing:

example 1: Grand Colombier
One hard unipuerto HC finish at the beginning is not neccesseraly wrong. But just to show what kind of combo is possible with the Grand Colombier.

You can have a last 70 km with: col de la Biche (HC - 13.2km at 7,7%) - GC from it's steepest side (HC - 8 km. at about 10%) - Col du Clergeion (1st - 8.7km at 8.4%) and than downhill finish in Rumilly. From the east or north you can add a lot of 3rd/2nd category climbs, for example like in 2016. Or if you start from the south, you can do Mont du Chat before.

example 2: Morzine
The obvious hard mountain - soft mountain her would be Joux Plane - Joux Verte. It's done before:

example 3: Loze
The obvious solution here would be Col de la Loze + Meribel

That are only examples what they could have done next year to enphase action.

 

[gavia88]

."..there is the myth that shorter automatically means 'more explosive' and 'more attractive' "

I dunno, by their very construction they almost automatically mean "more explosive." Whether that plays out till the end is not a given, of course.

I'm a huge fan of one short, hard stage per GT. I really enjoy those parts of any race where you have groups of riders up and down the road (especially why I love the last 1/3 of P-R), when any outcome is still possible. Even if by the last 20-30 km things settle down. What I don't love is long, hard, mountain stages where its the predictable breakaway at 6", then favorites marking each other until the final climb where it's a pure show of strength. My impression is that that short stages encourage riskier tactics.

I disagree. What kind of riskier tactics did you saw in this stage here:

If used well, short stages could be a lot of fun. But on the other hand, if the design is bad, they are easier to control. Less time and distance you have to spend energy from your team to control. I saw a lot of Vuelta stages that were not 'more explosive' by design. Just very easy to control till the start of the last climb. I know that many predictable short stages as I remember predictable long stages.


don't understand me wrong. I think both short as long stages could deliver great racing. But I don't see your bias in direction to short stages, while in reality the number of short stages that really deliver better racing than long stages is very limited.

 

[OlavEH]

example 1: Grand Colombier
One hard unipuerto HC finish at the beginning is not neccesseraly wrong. But just to show what kind of combo is possible with the Grand Colombier.

You can have a last 70 km with: col de la Biche (HC - 13.2km at 7,7%) - GC from it's steepest side (HC - 8 km. at about 10%) - Col du Clergeion (1st - 8.7km at 8.4%) and than downhill finish in Rumilly. From the east or north you can add a lot of 3rd/2nd category climbs, for example like in 2016. Or if you start from the south, you can do Mont du Chat before.

example 2: Morzine
The obvious hard mountain - soft mountain her would be Joux Plane - Joux Verte. It's done before:

example 3: Loze
The obvious solution here would be Col de la Loze + Meribel

I totally agree on that this would have been much better. And they didn't even had to descend and climb Clergeion after Grand Colombier. A Biche-Colombier finish or followed by a descent to Culoz would also be more than enough.

But I still think this and 2022 is an improvement compared to ealier years. Granon and Courchevel via Loze is better than AdH and La Toussuire. A Morzine finish via Joux-Plane is better than these descent finishes in the Pyreenes to Bagneres de Luchon or Bigorre and Foix. And the Hautacam stage this year is better than a Plateau de Beille or a Tourmalet MTF. It is one level up from earlier. If they also would implement changes like you haved suggested in future Tours, it would be another level or two up.

 

[Bolder]

I disagree. What kind of riskier tactics did you saw in this stage here:

If used well, short stages could be a lot of fun. But on the other hand, if the design is bad, they are easier to control. Less time and distance you have to spend energy from your team to control. I saw a lot of Vuelta stages that were not 'more explosive' by design. Just very easy to control till the start of the last climb. I know that many predictable short stages as I remember predictable long stages.


don't understand me wrong. I think both short as long stages could deliver great racing. But I don't see your bias in direction to short stages, while in reality the number of short stages that really deliver better racing than long stages is very limited.

Oh, I agree that a badly designed stage is a badly designed stage, no matter the length. And, as I said, one per GT is plenty, just like novelty stages like double Ventoux or a mini Strade Bianchi.

 

[gavia88]

I totally agree on that this would have been much better. And they didn't even had to descend and climb Clergeion after Grand Colombier. A Biche-Colombier finish or followed by a descent to Culoz would also be more than enough.

But I still think this and 2022 is an improvement compared to ealier years. Granon and Courchevel via Loze is better than AdH and La Toussuire. A Morzine finish via Joux-Plane is better than these descent finishes in the Pyreenes to Bagneres de Luchon or Bigorre and Foix. And the Hautacam stage this year is better than a Plateau de Beille or a Tourmalet MTF. It is one level up from earlier. If they also would implement changes like you haved suggested in future Tours, it would be another level or two up.

well, not that I like Toussuire, but if they use La Toussuire properly, they can at least have 2 HC climbs before it. In the example below, from everybodies favorite tour 2012, Madeleine and Croix de Fer (the variant via Glandon) were very decent HC climbs. Actually it's a 'short' stage design I liked, but of course you can do much more if you want. Both in 2012 as in 2015 racing was decent as well. Only Evans was to weak in 2012 for the Sky train and his attack on Croix de Fer didn't got more than 100m or so. In 2015 Contador tried early and Quintana should have joined Nibali.

Besides, it's not the worst climb ever. On it's own it would be a worthless climb, but it could work because of all the HC option you could add before.

 

[gavia88]

Oh, I agree that a badly designed stage is a badly designed stage, no matter the length. And, as I said, one per GT is plenty, just like novelty stages like double Ventoux or a mini Strade Bianchi.

oh, yes, I agree, it could be even more than 1. But used in the correct places in the race and compensated by at least 1 or 2 real endurance test as well in the same tour

 

[Eddy Evenepoel]

I think this stage finishing on Col du Mollard could've been nice the day after a long 200-220 km mountain stage with big climbs. Or it could've been ***. Who knows.

 

[Red Rick]

."..there is the myth that shorter automatically means 'more explosive' and 'more attractive' "

I dunno, by their very construction they almost automatically mean "more explosive." Whether that plays out till the end is not a given, of course.

I'm a huge fan of one short, hard stage per GT. I really enjoy those parts of any race where you have groups of riders up and down the road (especially why I love the last 1/3 of P-R), when any outcome is still possible. Even if by the last 20-30 km things settle down. What I don't love is long, hard, mountain stages where its the predictable breakaway at 6", then favorites marking each other until the final climb where it's a pure show of strength. My impression is that that short stages encourage riskier tactics.

There is one element that tends to make the short stage stuff work, but it's an element you can also implement in longer stages. Climbing from the start.

The only positive thing I see for TdF routes long term is the lower amount of pure sprints and the paving of certain previously unfeasable climbs like Loze and possibly Tougnete. Which brings me to the question what Loze looked like before it got paved for the TdF

 

[OlavEH]

well, not that I like Toussuire, but if they use La Toussuire properly, they can at least have 2 HC climbs before it. In the example below, from everybodies favorite tour 2012, Madeleine and Croix de Fer (the variant via Glandon) were very decent HC climbs. Actually it's a 'short' stage design I liked, but of course you can do much more if you want. Both in 2012 as in 2015 racing was decent as well. Only Evans was to weak in 2012 for the Sky train and his attack on Croix de Fer didn't got more than 100m or so. In 2015 Contador tried early and Quintana should have joined Nibali.

I think it's pretty mediocre compared to the other MTFs mentioned. And that applies for all the MTFs from the Tarentaise valley (Courchevel, La Plagne, Tignes, etc). Even with two HC climbs first, I think it's a below average mountain stage by Tour standards.

Btw, I outlined a maximum underwhelming Tour route when it comes to mountain stages. Without making them too easy when it comes to height meters or stage length:
Early Super Besse HTF
Pau - Peyragudes via Tourmalet and Aspin.
Bagneres de Luchon - Foix via Ares, Latrape, Agnes, Peguere
Gap - Alpe d'Huez via Izoard and Lautaret.
Bourg d'Oisans - Courchevel via Glandon and Madeleine
Super Belles Filles MTF on stage 19 or 20.

 

[Netserk]

Instead of using this ultra short length stages to have an entertaining stage from start till finish, they still focus on the finish. So phase 1: getting the breakaway, phase 2: status quo, phase 3: final and main difficulty of the day and only than GC action possible.

Instead with < 100 km stages, you could also do something like Phase 1: HC climb, phase 2: 1st climb, phase 3: 2 cat climb. Especially after a longer hard stage with a big mountain finish the day before, this could create chaos.

* correction: I don't mind short stages as part of variation within a grand tour. I prefer to have a 80 and 110 kilometer stage combined with a 220 and a 249 km stage, than all stages between 170-180 km.

Agreed. I had this as the last stage in the Alps before the last rest day in a Tour design. It was after a brutal stage to Auron, but it'd work well after the 1993 stage to Isola 2000 as well.

While it's true that designs are constrained by willing hosts (with enough euros to burn) and that France doesn't have the abundance of options in the mountains that Italy has, there's still plenty of very good options left on the table. But while innovations can lead to better options, my primary objection is against the broader design philosophy of a tapas route consisting of only small meals. New climbs or combos won't fix that. I guess you could make it somewhat palatable, but it'd take a lot of effort to do well.

 

[gavia88]

Agreed. I had this as the last stage in the Alps before the last rest day in a Tour design. It was after a brutal stage to Auron, but it'd work well after the 1993 stage to Isola 2000 as well.

While it's true that designs are constrained by willing hosts (with enough euros to burn) and that France doesn't have the abundance of options in the mountains that Italy has, there's still plenty of very good options left on the table. But while innovations can lead to better options, my primary opposition is against the broader design philosophy of a tapas route consisting of only small meals. New climbs or combos won't fix that. I guess you could make it somewhat palatable, but it'd take a lot of effort to do well.

another effect on the long term, for which I fear, is the perception of what is long and short. Before the '98 tour, it was quite common to have more than 4000 kilometers in total and stages of 260+ were quite common. I remember Zulle saying in 1999 that a 170 km mountain stage was so special because it was short, explosive and up and down all day. Nowadays, 170 km woul be seen as a hard and reasonable long mountain stage. With 5x 1st cat, it would even be the queen stage.

It was about this stage:

Nowadays, 170km 6 col mountain stage is not seen as short and explosive anymore. At a certain time, if you start having shorter and shorter stages, 140 km short will not been seen as extremely short anymore, ect. So, while on short term the effect can be that riders think, wow short stage, and are less afraid to spend to much energy. On the long term riders get used to the shorter distances and are not perceiving it as 'super' short anymore.

 

[OlavEH]

another effect on the long term, for which I fear, is the perception of what is long and short. Before the '98 tour, it was quite common to have more than 4000 kilometers in total and stages of 260+ were quite common. I remember Zulle saying in 1999 that a 170 km mountain stage was so special because it was short, explosive and up and down all day. Nowadays, 170 km woul be seen as a hard and reasonable long mountain stage. With 5x 1st cat, it would even be the queen stage.

If the 170-180 km stages are well designed, there isn't much need for 220-230 km or more mountain stages. That kind of stages in the old days usually just contained more flat or low gradient climbs than stages like the Pla d'Adet stage on this picture. I would rather have that stage than this one:

http://www.ledicodutour.com/images/cartes_etapes/1987_1996/1993/93_16.jpg

And to use Joux-Plane again. A stage from Bourg St.Maurice to Les Gets via Roseland, Saisies, Aravis, Colombiere, Romme and Joux-Plane would be just over 180 km. It is so tough that you don't need another 40-50 km including more climbs.

 

[Netserk]

If the 170-180 km stages are well designed, there isn't much need for 220-230 km or more mountain stages.

Of course there is. You might as well argue that Paris-Roubaix don't need the first 100 km, as the last 160 km are so well designed.

Stages also have impacts that last longer than to their finish line. The day after a marathons is different to a day after a simple VO2 Max effort.

And to use Joux-Plane again. A stage from Bourg St.Maurice to Les Gets via Roseland, Saisies, Aravis, Colombiere, Romme and Joux-Plane would be just over 180 km. It is so tough that you don't need another 40-50 km including more climbs.

That is not the offer. You propose a loaded deal: Low gradient long stages or great, dense medium stages. The former may be what we got served most of the time, but the latter is not what we get now instead. This is:

Yay, such an explosive short stage!

EDIT: From the 80's: