• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Change In TDF Parcours – Just An Idea

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Jun 18, 2009
1,097
0
0
Visit site
Some uf us, here, can't understand that the race is called Tour de France, not Dauphine Libere and not Pyrénées Clasic. France it's no. 1 country in the world by number of tourist, having 20.000.000 more than no. 2. France is not only the mountains. France is Loire Valley, is Bretagne, is Paris, is Bordeaux with it's vine, it's Cotte d'Azur,Provence etc. And this first place may be also because of Tour de France. Just put the Mont Ventoux with it's 2009 - 2 million people ( as I heard) and there you have 1/40 of France's annual total. What tourists atracts a climb like Joux Plaine where you can only see some trees. I also like mountain stages, they are the best. I go every year in the Alpes or in the Pyrenees, even I drive 24 h to get there. They are fantastic. But if you eat pizza three times a day, you get sick of it, aint'it giro?
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
jobiwan said:
stage-17-tour-de-France-2009-Bourg-St-Maurice-Le-Grand-Bornand.jpg


I thought the '09 stage to Le Grand Bornand was good.
5 climbs, w/ Romme, Colombiere combo at the end.

Was Prudhomme's finest work that year.
(Of course that doesn't say much about the rest of that route!! :p)

Now none of these stages are as good as this one, but there are some mountain stages on descends this year.

PROFIL.gif


Remember Beloki? This stage.
----

PROFIL.gif


This is stage 17
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
And goodies like this:

PROFIL.gif


PROFIL.gif


PROFIL.gif


I seriously don't get why people are complaining.

There are 2 stages for puncheurs in the first week and 2 possible echelon stages!(stage 3 and 5)
 
The TDF isn't far off having the perfectly balanced parcours this year. My initial post was speaking in general terms about what the first week tends to provide. Anyway, these are 3 changes that I'd make to this years parcours:

Stage 6 - A MTF on a climb that's a level up from a Gilbert climb. Something like Ax3Domaines or Verbier, but have it as one of these underused climbs that are in the Ardennes, Vosges, etc.

Stage 10 - ITT. 50km. Flat.

Stage 19 - Some have already mentioned the lack of a HC or Cat 1 climb/descent finish. I agree. I love the Romme-Columbierre combo too, but I'd go with Joux-Plaix since it hasn't been used since '06.

The best balanced GC this year is the Vuelta. But let's try to look into the thought process of the organisers for this years route (on an assumption that they are still able to make alterations after the other 2 GT parcours have been revealed). How did the Giro start? With a short team time trial. What did the TDF have on stage 2? A short team time trial. So what will we start our race with? A short team time trial.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!

For the Vuelta I'd begin with a prologue. The only other change I'd make is to finish with a 40-50 km TT.

Despite saying all of this, I don't believe that each GT should always be perfectly balanced. That in itself would be boring. So have an extreme route like this years Giro can be could for a change (even though it didn't work out as well as we'd hoped). It's just that having GT's unbalanced in the same ways all the time is bad. All with a short TTT, all with very few ITT kms, all loaded with the key GC stages in week 3.......

Imagine a GT next year with 150 kms of ITT and only 2 serious MTF's. It might sound dull initially, but hear me out. Those 2 stages could involve 4-6 serious cols (they'd both be queen stages - is that possible?!). Instead of waiting until the final 10kms of the mountain stages to attack (being content to gain 2-4 minutes on the Tony Martin types) the climbers may decide to begin the accelerations 80 kms out from the finish - perhaps on the 3rd last climb of the day, in order to potentially gain 8+ minutes on the TT specialists. This would result in more exciting racing, and would be even more likely to happen given that the climbers would be extra fresh from not doing too many grueling mountain stages.
 
Descender said:
Oh, he does understand. It's you, the American, who doesn't.
( I am french, by the way, born and brought up in Bagneres de Bigorre, at the foot of the boring and often maligned in this forum: Tourmalet)
It does seems to me, however, that the tour was understood well enough by American Cyclists to be something they wish to win some 11 times in the past 25 years
 
Dedelou said:
( I am french, by the way, born and brought up in Bagneres de Bigorre, at the foot of the boring and often maligned in this forum: Tourmalet)
It does seems to me, however, that the tour was understood well enough by American Cyclists to be something they wish to win some 11 times in the past 25 years

That is the problem. Americans ONLY understand TdF. But they don't understand cycling (I'm generalising of course). For them, cycling = tour.
 
Jun 16, 2009
15
0
0
Visit site
gregrowlerson said:
Imagine a GT next year with 150 kms of ITT and only 2 serious MTF's. It might sound dull initially, but hear me out. Those 2 stages could involve 4-6 serious cols (they'd both be queen stages - is that possible?!). Instead of waiting until the final 10kms of the mountain stages to attack (being content to gain 2-4 minutes on the Tony Martin types) the climbers may decide to begin the accelerations 80 kms out from the finish - perhaps on the 3rd last climb of the day, in order to potentially gain 8+ minutes on the TT specialists. This would result in more exciting racing, and would be even more likely to happen given that the climbers would be extra fresh from not doing too many grueling mountain stages.

Very interesting idea. There were some TdF in the early 90s and in the 80s which (roughly) corresponds to this description with lots of ITT and few mountains. Like 1980 with around 130 km ITT and 100 km TTT and only 2 MTF at Pra-Loup and Prapoutel, or 1992 which had around 135 ITT and 64 km TTT and MTF at Sestrieres plus Alpe d'Huez.
I am too young to have seen any of those years myself, so I'm wondering whether some people can comment upon whether the route made for a better race ?
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Visit site
Dedelou said:
I am french, by the way, born and brought up in Bagneres de Bigorre, at the foot of the boring and often maligned in this forum: Tourmalet)
...

Kaboom! Well played sir.

As you say, as long as there's an uphill bit for the climbers and some flat finishes for the sprinters, all the stars will come. It's the Tour de France! What else are they going to be doing in July?

It would be quite interesting to get a feel for the financial side of designing a TdF route, with regard to how much towns/cities/departments offer to stage a start/finish/passing through.

I've always thought that getting to Bordeaux was a waste of a couple of days. Unless you like claret of course.
 
El Pistolero said:
And goodies like this:

PROFIL.gif

That "goodie" has 25km of false flat on a very broad and straight road before tackling the easy climb to Galibier. Any valiant moves on the Agnello or Izoard are bound to fail miserably.


As I said, that is the best stage of the tour, the best suited for long-distance attacks. Still, the last climb is very hard which will probably discourage riders to attack on the Tourmalet. Too bad the organisers messed it up by placing it as the FIRST mountain stage instead of the last one, anyway.


Do you seriously think this has potential to be a great epic stage? This is basically the "climb to Plateau de Beille". With some hard climbs before it, mind you, but nothing of significance will happen before the final climb. It will all be decided there.

Perhaps you are just content with the modern "youtube cycling" and don't crave the days where attacks made at 7km from the finish line were not considered "attacks from far away".
 
Nov 30, 2010
797
0
0
Visit site
King Of The Wolds said:
I think the lack of flat ITT was perhaps designed with engineering another close battle between Bertie and Andy, despite the obvious lack of balance.

Unless Prudhomme had an inside track on the Contador case, the general assumption was that he wouldn't be racing. The accusation was that Schleck Jnr was the chosen one and this parcours was designed for his benefit.

Actually, trying to design a Contador neutralising course is quite an amusing diversion.
 
gregrowlerson said:
The TDF isn't far off having the perfectly balanced parcours this year. My initial post was speaking in general terms about what the first week tends to provide. Anyway, these are 3 changes that I'd make to this years parcours:

Stage 6 - A MTF on a climb that's a level up from a Gilbert climb. Something like Ax3Domaines or Verbier, but have it as one of these underused climbs that are in the Ardennes, Vosges, etc.

Stage 10 - ITT. 50km. Flat.

Stage 19 - Some have already mentioned the lack of a HC or Cat 1 climb/descent finish. I agree. I love the Romme-Columbierre combo too, but I'd go with Joux-Plaix since it hasn't been used since '06.

The best balanced GC this year is the Vuelta. But let's try to look into the thought process of the organisers for this years route (on an assumption that they are still able to make alterations after the other 2 GT parcours have been revealed). How did the Giro start? With a short team time trial. What did the TDF have on stage 2? A short team time trial. So what will we start our race with? A short team time trial.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????!!!

For the Vuelta I'd begin with a prologue. The only other change I'd make is to finish with a 40-50 km TT.

Despite saying all of this, I don't believe that each GT should always be perfectly balanced. That in itself would be boring. So have an extreme route like this years Giro can be could for a change (even though it didn't work out as well as we'd hoped). It's just that having GT's unbalanced in the same ways all the time is bad. All with a short TTT, all with very few ITT kms, all loaded with the key GC stages in week 3.......

Imagine a GT next year with 150 kms of ITT and only 2 serious MTF's. It might sound dull initially, but hear me out. Those 2 stages could involve 4-6 serious cols (they'd both be queen stages - is that possible?!). Instead of waiting until the final 10kms of the mountain stages to attack (being content to gain 2-4 minutes on the Tony Martin types) the climbers may decide to begin the accelerations 80 kms out from the finish - perhaps on the 3rd last climb of the day, in order to potentially gain 8+ minutes on the TT specialists. This would result in more exciting racing, and would be even more likely to happen given that the climbers would be extra fresh from not doing too many grueling mountain stages.

Very good post overall.

We don't need to go to such extremes to make racing more interesting though. Just put two long ITTs and some high mountain stages with a chance to attack from far away and we're grand. In short: what the TdF has been doing for ages until these past years.
 
Captain_Cavman said:
Unless Prudhomme had an inside track on the Contador case, the general assumption was that he wouldn't be racing. The accusation was that Schleck Jnr was the chosen one and this parcours was designed for his benefit.

Actually, trying to design a Contador neutralising course is quite an amusing diversion.

Contador's positive test was revealed in September (although I guess Prudhomme may have known before that somebody tested +ve in his race) and the Tour route is revealed in October. I'm pretty sure that the route is nailed on by September and any change would be difficult to make at that point.

I can't see why they'd choose a route which would, effectively, be one long lap of honour for Schleck, if it was designed without AC in mind. It makes sense for Prudhomme to have a close battle throughout.
 
Jul 16, 2010
17,455
5
0
Visit site
Descender said:
That "goodie" has 25km of false flat on a very broad and straight road before tackling the easy climb to Galibier. Any valiant moves on the Agnello or Izoard are bound to fail miserably.



As I said, that is the best stage of the tour, the best suited for long-distance attacks. Still, the last climb is very hard which will probably discourage riders to attack on the Tourmalet. Too bad the organisers messed it up by placing it as the FIRST mountain stage instead of the last one, anyway.



Do you seriously think this has potential to be a great epic stage? This is basically the "climb to Plateau de Beille". With some hard climbs before it, mind you, but nothing of significance will happen before the final climb. It will all be decided there.

Perhaps you are just content with the modern "youtube cycling" and don't crave the days where attacks made at 7km from the finish line were not considered "attacks from far away".

Lol, you can criticize the Giro route for all its mountain stages then. It all depends on how these stages are raced, but they have potential to isolate the favorites early on which could lead to epic racing.

Yes, all the stages I posted will make for interesting races. And all have more potential than most mountain stages at the Giro.
 
El Pistolero said:
Lol, you can criticize the Giro route for all its mountain stages then. It all depends on how these stages are raced, but they have potential to isolate the favorites early on which could lead to epic racing.

Yes, all the stages I posted will make for interesting races. And all have more potential than most mountain stages at the Giro.

You keep bringing up the Giro, who is talking about the Giro? I was as critical with the Giro route as I am with this Tour.
 
Dedelou said:
( I am french, by the way, born and brought up in Bagneres de Bigorre, at the foot of the boring and often maligned in this forum: Tourmalet)
It does seems to me, however, that the tour was understood well enough by American Cyclists to be something they wish to win some 11 times in the past 25 years

The Tourmalet is a great climb.

But hey, so is Mont Ventoux.

We see Mont Ventoux once every 7, 8 years?

We see Tourmalet EVERY YEAR.

All the while, great parts of the country, great climbs, potential great stages, are ignored. Wouldn't it be nice to see some areas of the country other than that same area?

I get it, the Tour de France is the biggest event in the sport. But it doesn't have to be the same event every year. There are great places in France that have never seen the race, and there are places that we see every year. It's not without reason that every single climb in every race gets compared by Phil and Paul to Alpe d'Huez - because we're saturated with Alpe d'Huez. This is the first time since the 70s that we've been more than 2 years without an Alpe finish.

And yes, there's something to be said for having these legendary places that fans know about and come with instant credibility. But the Passo dello Stelvio is similarly revered and respected, and the Giro has used it SIX times in total.

I'm not asking for wholesale changes to what the Tour de France is. Just that people have excused the Tour its predictable routes based on France not having the same range of mountains that Spain and Italy have, and many bewail the lack of variety in the routes (plus also, it doesn't need to go ballistic to get the attention since it's the biggest race already by far), and I'm pointing out whole mountainous regions that we rarely, if ever, get to see, and climbs which I think would be beneficial to the spectacle.

The problem is the differing interpretation of what the spectacle is, or should be. Prudhomme seems very keen to make sure that as many people as possible are still in contention for an epic final battle in recent years; the problem is that that means not putting much in the way of stages that can create big gaps early on, and it feels a wee bit artificial. But since the stages keep getting the TV figures, more fool me really, since there obviously are plenty of people who will tune in to watch little happen for two weeks.
 
The 2013 Tour will start with 3 stages on Corsica. Does anyone know if climbs are planned for these stages?

Col de l’Ospedale has been in the Criterium International for the last 2 years which suggests it might be on the agenda.
 
Libertine Seguros said:
The Tourmalet is a great climb.

But hey, so is Mont Ventoux.

We see Mont Ventoux once every 7, 8 years?

We see Tourmalet EVERY YEAR.

While the Tour could (and certainly should) make better use of other climbs in the Pyrenees I would like to defend the relative overuse of the Tourmalet.

First of all, I don't think there are any alternative longitudinal roads in that area. Second, Tourmalet can be paired with Hautacam, Luz Ardiden or Cauterets etc or going in the other direction with Peyresourde, Piau-Engaly, Plat d'Adet. I do agree though that it's relatively lazy route design and it doesn't need to be used almost every year.
 
roundabout said:
While the Tour could (and certainly should) make better use of other climbs in the Pyrenees I would like to defend the relative overuse of the Tourmalet.

First of all, I don't think there are any alternative longitudinal roads in that area. Second, Tourmalet can be paired with Hautacam, Luz Ardiden or Cauterets etc or going in the other direction with Peyresourde, Piau-Engaly, Plat d'Adet. I do agree though that it's relatively lazy route design and it doesn't need to be used almost every year.

When using that area of the Pyrenees certainly the Tourmalet makes sense to use most times. But do we have to use that area of the Pyrenees all the time? You can make a perfectly good mountain stage in the area to the East of it without using it, using things like Aspin, Piau-Engaly, Hourquette d'Ancizan, Peyresourde, Port de Balès and Superbagnères. And we don't often see much in the way of use of the Pyrenees west of there, not just with Soulor but with the likes of Pourtalet, Casteix, Bouesou, and the French Basque climbs.

Tourmalet is too good to just leave unused for many years, sure, but it doesn't have to be in every year.
 
zigzag wanderer said:
The 2013 Tour will start with 3 stages on Corsica. Does anyone know if climbs are planned for these stages?

Col de l’Ospedale has been in the Criterium International for the last 2 years which suggests it might be on the agenda.

Don't think that Ospedale is already fixed. It's just the nearest climb to Porto Vecchio which serves as the race's hub.

At least one of the three Corsica stages has to be hilly. You can have a rather flat prologue in Ajaccio, Bastia or Porto Vecchio and you can have one long flat stage up and down the east coast (Porto Vecchio - Bastia or the other way round). But for the third stage you just can't avoid the inner island. And there is hardly a flat road to find. Can't imagine a MTF, the infrastructure on top of those climbs (Col de Vergio, Col de l'Ospedale, Col de Bavella, Campanelle etc.) isn't made to host a TDF finish.

My prediction for the route is as follows:

- Prologue in Bastia, maybe 5-6 km, a lot of corners in the old town, finish at the seaside
- 1st stage from Bastia to Porto Vecchio or Bonifacio, which means straight down the east coast, some cat. 4 climbs in the Castagniccia region to have a fight for the polka dot jersey, then a sprint finish
- 2nd stage from Porto Vecchio or Bonifacio to Ajaccio: twisty roads, up and down all the way, a lot of cat. 2 and cat. 3 climbs, attacks all the time, finish with a small group of opportunists. If Prudhomme's brave, they tackle Col de Verde and Col de Vizzavona before heading down to Ajaccio. Would be great.

Anyway, Le Tour on Corsica is a dream coming true. :)
 
Bye Bye Bicycle said:
Don't think that Ospedale is already fixed. It's just the nearest climb to Porto Vecchio which serves as the race's hub.

At least one of the three Corsica stages has to be hilly. You can have a rather flat prologue in Ajaccio, Bastia or Porto Vecchio and you can have one long flat stage up and down the east coast (Porto Vecchio - Bastia or the other way round). But for the third stage you just can't avoid the inner island. And there is hardly a flat road to find. Can't imagine a MTF, the infrastructure on top of those climbs (Col de Vergio, Col de l'Ospedale, Col de Bavella, Campanelle etc.) isn't made to host a TDF finish.

My prediction for the route is as follows:

- Prologue in Bastia, maybe 5-6 km, a lot of corners in the old town, finish at the seaside
- 1st stage from Bastia to Porto Vecchio or Bonifacio, which means straight down the east coast, some cat. 4 climbs in the Castagniccia region to have a fight for the polka dot jersey, then a sprint finish
- 2nd stage from Porto Vecchio or Bonifacio to Ajaccio: twisty roads, up and down all the way, a lot of cat. 2 and cat. 3 climbs, attacks all the time, finish with a small group of opportunists. If Prudhomme's brave, they tackle Col de Verde and Col de Vizzavona before heading down to Ajaccio. Would be great.

Anyway, Le Tour on Corsica is a dream coming true. :)

Col de Vizzavona would certainly liven up the first week:)

According to this article there will be no prologue.

They'll visit all the towns you mentioned plus Calvi.

Corsica is certainly going to be a refreshing change - I don't know Corsica at all so it's good to hear that they can't avoid climbing when they go inland. Just hope they don't use an early "mountainous" stage as an excuse to neuter the Alps or more likely the Pyrenees.
 
zigzag wanderer said:
Col de Vizzavona would certainly liven up the first week:)

According to this article there will be no prologue.

They'll visit all the towns you mentioned plus Calvi.

Corsica is certainly going to be a refreshing change - I don't know Corsica at all so it's good to hear that they can't avoid climbing when they go inland. Just hope they don't use an early "mountainous" stage as an excuse to neuter the Alps or more likely the Pyrenees.

Ah, even better. So they will pass through the beautiful north-western part of the island, too.

Then we'll have propably a 3rd stage from Ajaccio to Calvi. Which makes sense as the ferry distance from Calvi to Nice or Toulon is the shortest from any Corsica ferry port.

This stage MUST feature a passage of the Calanche coast. Ah, so lovely.
 
Amongst all of the outrage of the first six stages of this years’ Tour De France, has been some enlightenment. We kind of learned something.

Merely reasonably hard mountain stages don’t make much of a difference during week one of a GT (or at least of the Tour).

What has been extra interesting about the lack of racing interest from these early mountain stages, is that they have been separated. Stage 2, 4, 6. There hasn’t been any obvious reason to hold back, given that each stage that followed was rather flat. We really shouldn’t blame the organisers too much for the bland outcome, as most of us were quite happy with this first week parcours when we first saw it. However, hopefully they learn from it for future editions.

It may sound like a crazy idea, but I think that’s only because it goes so much against tradition. My idea is that on the first Saturday and Sunday, on the first weekend, on stages ONE and TWO (not every year, but just on occasion) you ride into the PROPER high mountains.

I’m not talking PDBF (it deserves to be kept as 4 letters) here.

Either in the Alps or in the Pyrenees, you start with a MTF (HC or at least a genuine Cat 1), possibly only a single mountain stage; then stage 2 is a multi mountain, descent finish stage.

There are 21 days in a GT. The weekend stages should be emphasised more in terms of the spectacle. And the days before and after the rest days should be emphasised more in terms of the overall battle for the yellow jersey.

It is criminal that in this years’ Tour De France, that on stage 10, the stage after a rest day, after a full nine days of racing; on the first stage that actually changes it from just a stage race to a grand tour….

Well, look at that course design.

And then look at stage 11….

Basically the first two stages where you might be able to really separate the grand tour riders from the stage race ones, and you give us that.

Stages 10 & 11 are the biggest disappointment in this route. Relying solely on Mother Nature to provide the opportunity for any GC action.

As we have seen in some Vuelta’s, you don’t necessarily need the highest and hardest mountains in week three to produce great racing. Yet for the most part, we see ridiculously back ended GT’s (yes, the Giro is even as much to blame for this as the Tour). The hardest mountains, for the most part, would be better placed in week two.

The stages that I would be looking to highlight are stages 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21. At least roughly those. That’s 10 stages; probably too many genuine GC stages, but you get the idea. Anyway, stage 21 (if we keep to tradition) is cancelled out anyway. I like the idea of stage 20 being a fairly big stage (ITT or mountain stage), but it shouldn’t be the hardest mountain stage of the race, and the days before it don’t need to be obviously decisive either. Maybe 2 out of 3 stages from 17-19 could be ambush type potential. But mostly they are stages that don’t discourage riders from attacking earlier in the race.

In many editions stages 8-10 and 14-16 would be in the two main mountain ranges (but in some editions the vosges, massif central, jura can be showcased). The template of hard MTF followed by descent finish works here, because even if the third stage in this mountain chain is a MTF, it shouldn’t detract from racing hard on the second stage, because the rest day comes between them.

Anyway, at least one of the first two stages of the Tour De France should either guarantee time gaps, or viewer entertainment, or both. So the somewhat forgotten prologue is obviously something that should be used regularly. Or you could just have a longer ITT. Occasionally you ride on the cobbles (I am not personally a big fan of this to decide the GC, but it does almost inevitably provide some entertainment and time gaps). Maybe on stage 1 or 2 the Tour could get really inventive, and have a stage that is like a mini LBL/Lombardia, say 220 kms long and with hills galore.

This is all only if they don’t start with my proper high mountains double shot.

Which may actually reduce our need to drink.

That’s it really. As many of 4 out of the 5 stages from 3-7 could be fairly sprinter friendly (with a hilltop finish in amongst it). If there are already significant time gaps then crashes may not be so much of an issue.

Outside of the course itself, as many have suggested, reduction of riders per team is obviously a potential way to make racing less controlled. To me, 6 sounds like a sensible number (and I’d keep the same number of teams, as less total number of riders in the race might lead to less chaotic mass crashes).

The other thing that I would consider, is giving serious time bonuses at the finish line. 30, 20, 10 maybe (and then even 6, 4, 3, 2, 1….though that could mean more crashes in a battle for positions). Think about it; a sprinter who gains an additional three minutes still isn’t going to be any sort of a threat for the yellow jersey, but it would give a genuine incentive for Roglic types to try to win as many winnable mountainous stages as possible. He could gain more than two minutes in bonuses, and make up for one bad day in the high mountains. And each stage in itself would be taken more seriously by the peloton (even those that finish at Mont Aigoual).

P.S. Like Prudhomme, I am glad that I have discovered since the OP that France has more than two mountain ranges….
 

TRENDING THREADS