Rate the 100th TDF route

[luckyboy]

The potentially interesting Corsican stages are too short.
Pyrenees are rubbish.
First time trial finishes in a nice place.
Ventoux stage might as well be 100km less, pointless.
Second time trial should be interesting if it's as hard as Prudhomme says.
Alpe d'Huez stage is good apart from the first 70km.
Le Grand Bornard stage has the mountains in the wrong order. Could be good if everyone doesn't save themselves.
Annecy stage is pathetically short even if the MTF look interesting.

What are there, 9 sprints? Jesus Christ.
No classic-style hilly stage either.
TT km is good.

Better than last year anyway.


I gave the Giro a 6, so this gets a 3

I disagree that the Semnoz stage is too short. Remember the 109km Alpe d'Huez stage in 2011? That was one of the best Tour de France stages I've ever seen. There are enough long stages with multiple climbs, one short-ish stage that still has two big climbs will be fine.

That had the Galibier in though.

 

[babastooey]

I'm not really sophisticated enough to know simply by looking at a route how good the racing will be. To me, how good the racing will be is determined by who is racing and what their strategy is. I know that the race course has a lot to do with it, but whatever.

As for this race course, without seeing how hilly the first three stages are, who knows, there could be something interesting there.

I always like team time trials, so that is good. I especially love the ones where the small teams go around a bend wrong and 5 or 6 guys wreck at the same time in a farmer's field.

I am less of a fan of those courses where it is flat forever followed by one climb to the finish. I like stages that end on a climb, though. The Ventoux stage is long, though, and that could bring a new dimension into it.

The stages in the Pyrenees seem like nothing special. However, with only an interesting ITT and a bunch of flat stages otherwise between the TTT and Ventoux, we will probably see someone try something on those two days in the mountains.

It is clear that all the action is saved for July 14 (Ventoux) and the days in the Alps. I'm not sure if I like "end loading" the Tour.

The day when they climb Alpe d'Huez twice is so gimmicky, now that they have already done it in the past with the Galibier and Tourmalet. It makes it look like they are stuck in a rut. So which one do they double up on next year?

It is almost like the 100th anniversary of the Tour was the important one, and this one is just the 100th Tour. Nothing about the route screams that this is a course defined by the race's history. It is simply another Tour route.

When June hits and the VeloNews magazine shows up at my local bookstore, I'm sure I will get excited buying it, reading all the articles, and scanning over all the maps, but I won't be any more excited then I usually am. That means that for me, this one is pretty average, so I will say 5/10. And if I want to say that it missed the mark because it was supposed to be special for the 100th, then it is a 3/10.

 

[Ferminal]

I thought 7.5/10, maybe 7/10.

-1 for the completely useless first ITT, why isn't this 45-55km? Ok, this can stay 30km, but then the TTT has to be an ITT. ITT would create bigger gaps than the TTT so the Pyrenees may get flagged by someone looking to gain time.

-1 for the final two stages. Ugh, they just feel so forced. The profile makes the Le Grand Bornand stage look better than it actually is - hardly a Dolomitic finish. Annecy, well what do you expect when you start and finish in the same place lol. As mentioned above, the MTF will probably mess with the strategy on the previous day. I can only think that these two towns pay an absolute load of $$$ to get this treatment. Imagine the penultimate stage going from Bourg d'Oisans to say, Val Thorens, La Plagne, or Val d'Isere (solves your altitude problem). That means the final day could be the one with climbs spaced out a bit, relatively easier/shorter, finishing off from Chatillion or Forclaz down on the lake.

-0.5/1 for small things which just annoy me. Stage 2 could be much better but now looks like just a normal sprint finish. The day into Albi looks like no climbing towards the end so just a token break stage rather than hilly finish. No Garavel before Pailheres; adding some random unnecessary flat the next day. Would have been good for one of the sprint stages to be a Hillbert or Murito finish.

 

[zlev11]

That had the Galibier in though.

oh, no doubt that profile is much better, but it's fine with me if there's one really short mountain stage thrown in there. it's good to have some variety. i think the entire last half of that stage is going to be raced incredibly hard.

according to the Tour website Mont Revard is 16km at 5.6%

 

[gregrowlerson]

I voted 8, closer to 9 than 7.

First week might be a little dull, but Pyrenees are alright, and then an ITT in the middle of the three weeks is great, though could be a little longer.

I like the Alps. We have the double serving of THE alp; a bit gimmicky, but we know that this will be a terrific stage. Grand Bornard is pretty grand indeed. Remember in '04 when Landis rode everyone bar Armstrong, Basso, Ullrich and Kloden off his wheel? This stage will be very decisive and some GC riders will lose big time. Stage 20 is alright too. After battering themselves on the previous 2 days, big gaps will be seen on the final climb. Now if this was stage 18 then I could complain, but I like where it is situated. Considering the first 2 days in the Alps and the fact that they've also climbed Venteoux, there is no need for a horrific penultimate stage.

Mountainous ITT is great too. A couple of 6kms climbs; will test descending skills also.

 

[Hugo Koblet]

I gave it a 4. I think it's a disaster of a route to celebrate the 100th edition.

I don't like the L'Alpe stage because I'm not a fan of doing loops in general and they could've done so much better if they wanted to innovate.
I don't like the Bastille Day stage.
I don't like the fact that there is no long ITT.
I miss some mountain stages.

On the positive side, I look forward to the three first stages and the hilly ITT and that's about it.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

I want to give it a 10 because it's the 100th year of the "great" tdf.

 

[Leonardus]

Without considering this is the 100th edition which should be about honoring the rich past with a circle through France with the classic cities and mountains of the first decades, then I rate this as a 7.

There is not a classic, hard stage on Corsica.
Too many sprint stages (9).
Misses classic/hilly stages
LGB stage front loaded and Semnoz stage too short and just Mont Revard as serious climb.
Still, TT's are good. Ax is a nice stage and Ventoux and Alpe will be hard. So it's average/good enough = 7 for me.

 

[Arnout]

Maybe there is a simple reason for Le Semnoz being such a short stage, such as having to transfer off a mountain in the Alps and then transfer to Paris.
Also explains the late, late show on Sunday.

I doubt the finish is any earlier on Le Semnoz.

Actually, I think it is not that bad. It is a last stage in which you can make up time if you want to, but it won't scare riders to the extent that they will be saving energy in the stages before.

 

[SafeBet]

Same old same old.
I was expecting much more for the 100th.

 

[El Pistolero]

There do not seem to be a lot of stages for punchers this year. Yellow jersey for the pure sprinters, meh.

Do not like the route that much, but I've seen worse. I hope the World Champion skips this race though. I'd love to see him at the Giro for 2 weeks and the Vuelta.

 

[Capablanca and me]

no time bonus... again

 

[luckyboy]

Why are people saying they want more TT now? Don't they remember what happened three months ago?

 

[hughmoore]

Why are people saying they want more TT now? Don't they remember what happened three months ago?

Last year it was too much TT and this year its not enough.

 

[Cogombre]

Why are people saying they want more TT now? Don't they remember what happened three months ago?

That the 2nd best climber won because he was lucky to have the best climber as his domestique? I doubt the ITT mileage had anything to do with how the racing unfolded, with just one ITT I'm sure Sky would have done the same. And they'll try the same next year.

On this year's route, I'm giving it a 4. The first TT is too short, and all mountain stages seem to lack something, except maybe the one to Ax 3 Domaines, because it's only the first one. Too many flat stages, with barely any medium mountains, and the poor Corsica stages don't help either. Maybe it'd be a 5 if this wasn't the 100th edition, I hoped ASO would break the mould for this edition, but alas, they didn't.

 

[Eshnar]

Why are people saying they want more TT now? Don't they remember what happened three months ago?

Between last year's amount of TT and this year's there a long way to go.

 

[Alphabet]

No Tourmalet?

What I am concerned about is that it will turn out a lot like 2011, with no one trying much in the early mountain stages because they're all so afraid of that insanely tough final week. The stage to Mont Ventoux is disappointing, looks like something straight out of the Unipublic book.

 

[Pantani_lives]

Why are people so negative? I'm quite enthusiastic about this route compared to the previous years: four MTFs, two ITTs including one with a climb. Of course it's always up to the riders to make it a great race, but this course has the potential for a good old battle.

 

[Bobby G]

Tried to be subjective about it. It is a bit annoying that we've heard all the rhetoric about La Tour XL etc. but removing the 100th anniversary tag, I think it's a strong edition. 8/10

 

[DominicDecoco]

Why are people so negative? I'm quite enthusiastic about this route compared to the previous years: four MTFs, two ITTs including one with a climb. Of course it's always up to the riders to make it a great race, but this course has the potential for a good old battle.

As you can see by the vote results it's not the general opinion that the route is awful. In fact, most think it's rather good/above average. The negative posts have been in the majority for the first 4 pages though - but that's how we know CN forum, isn't it

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Why are people saying they want more TT now? Don't they remember what happened three months ago?

I remember that the mountain stages were designed for Wiggins. The whole TDF was designed for Wiggins.

The mountain stages are way different this time around, even though the low altitude of the mountains is the same. The four MTFs average about 8 percent and there are two other high mountain stages. The second ITT won't suit Froome perfectly, either, because it's quite technical

I guess ASO must have fallen in love with Contador as the route suits him really well. Either that, or they don't care if he wins, but just want Rolland and Pinot to finish as high as possible. On the podium, perhaps. It can't be ruled out.

 

[Ferminal]

Why are people saying they want more TT now? Don't they remember what happened three months ago?

The TT should be balanced against what climbing there is.

So they've doubled the amount of opportunities for the climbers but more than halved the opportunities for the TT specialist. It's gone from being weighted massively to a TT'er to weighted massively to a climber.

 

[LaFlorecita]

I disagree that the Semnoz stage is too short. Remember the 109km Alpe d'Huez stage in 2011? That was one of the best Tour de France stages I've ever seen. There are enough long stages with multiple climbs, one short-ish stage that still has two big climbs will be fine.

Why was it good? Because Alberto attacked with 90 km to go. He only did that because he couldn't win the GC anyway.

Will someone attack next year? Who knows. But I believe it's more about the riders and less about the stage. I mean, Andy also attacked from far out on stage 18 and that stage wasn't short.

 

[Zam_Olyas]

There do not seem to be a lot of stages for punchers this year. Yellow jersey for the pure sprinters, meh.

Do not like the route that much, but I've seen worse. I hope the World Champion skips this race though. I'd love to see him at the Giro for 2 weeks and the Vuelta.

You told me you don't like the Giro..was that just to troll?

 

[Afrank]

The TT should be balanced against what climbing there is.

So they've doubled the amount of opportunities for the climbers but more than halved the opportunities for the TT specialist. It's gone from being weighted massively to a TT'er to weighted massively to a climber.

Going from 101 km of TT to 90 km really isn't cutting the opportunities for the TT specialist in half.

Besides, with the 2012 tour being made for the TTers, the climbers should be given more opportunities than than the TTers in this tour. Of course I'm biased towards the climbers and MTF's in races .