Re:
Kyllingen86 said:
I must say the Tour de France 2017 route seems a lot weaker than this year. However it doesn't mean the race will become boring.
The Pyreneers looks really bleak. Only two stages and so far not a MTF that intrigues me. Hautacam, Plateau de Beille, Superbagneres? At least the latter has been rumoured but in the end Luz Ardiden seems to win the race
The alps also seem poor with mediocre Meribel followed by two stages with only two real mountains - one finishing with a descent. I actually don't dislike the stages to Izoard and Serra Chevalier but they need to be supplemented by at least one mountain stage with 4+ mountains. I like different type of mountain stages to appear in one stage race and they just look so similar (except for the finish).
Massif central might get a lot of focus this year but how many of its hills/mountains are capable of making a difference among the top GC-contenders?
If they plan to spend relatively long time in the massif central why not include Puy de Dome?
I would really like to know why Puy de Dome year after year is skipped. Are anyone familiar with the territory? Are there any logical explanation for the lack of Puy de Dome?
The situation with Puy de Dome has already been explained. Linkinito is right that - as long as we don't consider Mont Ventoux, which is debated but every cycling fan knows about obviously - the Col de la Lusette is probably the only HC-worthy climb in the Massif Central that's usable (and would probably require a flat and descent into Le Vigan, or an MTF at Mont Aigoual, to be used in a way that would make a difference), but there are a fair few other climbs that
could have an impact.
Obviously we're all familiar with the Côte de la Croix-Neuve in Mende, which is short but steep, and that that and Super-Besse are the only options that tend to pay up (Super-Besse can be decent if approached like in 2008, rather than like in 2011).
The Col du Pré de la Dame is difficult enough that it could create gaps and is a solid cat.1:
There's also an underappreciated long grinder, the mighty Col de l'Œillon, which has many sides, the toughest probably being this northeastern face:
This could lead to a rolling 10km or so to finish at the Croix de Chaubouret, which was an MTF in Paris-Nice a couple of years ago. It's not that tough but could work as a Montevergine type climb I guess.
The alternative would be to back Œillon into the cat.2
Burdignes after descending into Bourg-Argental and finishing in Annonay.
You could also, further south, use the Col de la Mûre which was used in Paris-Nice in 2011, sadly the rest of the route was pretty poorly balanced so it didn't make a huge difference. With a good up-and-down stage it could have an effect at the end with a Vernoux-en-Vivarais finish like in 2011.
There's also the possibility of finishing with the Chalmazel ski station paying, either at the descent or at the summit of the Col du Béal, which hosted an MTF in the 2014 Dauphiné when Froome and Contador went at one another. Again it's not a monster but it's a solid cat.1 that could fairly open up gaps.
The biggest disappointment from that 2014 stage was that they didn't precede it with the
Col de Chansert which backs into it perfectly, and is probably an easyish cat.1 as a lead-in climb. Look at
this stage and stick the Col de Chansert between Ambert and Vertolaye and you have a perfectly decent stage (Col de l'Homme-Mort ought to be combined into one long cat.1 grinder).
The issue with the Massif Central is that a large number of the climbs are either not all that steep, so they're sapping without creating gaps, or the stations near to these climbs simply aren't big enough to host the race, so the options become relatively limited once you get to races as big as the Tour, where the space requirements for the race caravan, let alone hotels and facilities for all of the teams, staff and race staff, are much heavier than in smaller races - even ones like Paris-Nice.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram