Rate the 2015 Tour route!

[Dazed and Confused]

Need to see the finer details of the 1st week before verdict.

Negatives:

Too many uphill finishes (including MTFs). These are often very dull. Target should be 4-5 in total.

No long ITT.

No "remove some pretenders" stage before the first rest day (relies on cross wind and cobbles mayhem now).


Positives:

The two descent finishes can be raced from a distance.

Tough cobbles stage

Two cross wind stages, but I hope one of them offers some other challenges in case of no wind. Details are important here.

No severe backloading.

Until the details arrive, I see a 3 mark on the route. With a long ITT it would have been 5 or 6 depending on final profiles in the first week.

 

[OlavEH]

How was 2008 worse????

If not worse, at the same level.

2008 had 3 MTF and one of the (Pratonevoso) was fairly easy. Only 4 (5 if you include Super Besse) of the hilly/mountain stages were tough enough to create any kind of gaps between the GT contenders.

 

[Liquigas]

Horrible route, this can't be called a Tour de France.

 

[hrotha]

If not worse, at the same level.

2008 had 3 MTF and one of the (Pratonevoso) was fairly easy. Only 4 (5 if you include Super Besse) of the hilly/mountain stages were tough enough to create any kind of gaps between the GT contenders.

It also had 82.5 km of ITT. This one has 14 km. FOURTEEN.

The impact of that on the race can't be understated.

 

[Netserk]

If not worse, at the same level.

2008 had 3 MTF and one of the (Pratonevoso) was fairly easy. Only 4 (5 if you include Super Besse) of the hilly/mountain stages were tough enough to create any kind of gaps between the GT contenders.

The same was the case in 2010.

Avoriaz, Madeleine, (Mende), Ax3, Tourmalet.

 

[sir fly]

I must rate it lower than 5 'cause it needs lots of riders' effort to provide the excitement, but can't give less than 3 and be too harsh.

 

[Ferminal]

If not worse, at the same level.

2008 had 3 MTF and one of the (Pratonevoso) was fairly easy. Only 4 (5 if you include Super Besse) of the hilly/mountain stages were tough enough to create any kind of gaps between the GT contenders.

Yeh 2008 was pretty awful aside from the last two stages in the Alps (without the CERA kids it would have been even worse to watch).

This actually reminds me of 2009 more than anything although it obviously lacks a big stage. Make PSM, AdH or La Toussuire a "proper" stage and it looks a lot better.

I guess this is all "modern cycling" deserves.

 

[OlavEH]

The same was the case in 2010.

Avoriaz, Madeleine, (Mende), Ax3, Tourmalet.

Plus Station des Rousses.

2 hilly finishes compared to one in 2008 and Mende is way better than Super Besse.

And Avoriaz, Madeleine, Ax3 and Tourmalet is defintely one notch better than in 2008. Still not a very good route, but better.

2009 and 2012 are still the worst in the last decade or so.

 

[Miburo]

It has some really good stages imo but 3 big things lack imo.

1. A truly hard Mountain stage.

2. A downhill finish just after a mountain. There are some descent finished but pretty far away so...

3. A long ITT.

Those 3 abilities of a rider won't be tested in this tour, that's a shame.

 

[guncha]

There have been worse versions. 2008 and 2009 was worse. Same with 2012.

I disagree because 2008 had 80km of ITT, 4 MTF + two stages with decent. Alpe d'Huez stage was 200km long, a way better that next year's crap. A good and balanced route (7 out of 10 to me).
2009 had 55km of ITT, 3 MTF and superb stage to Le Grand Bornand. With one more MTF and without annoying stages to Tarbes and Saint Girons it may have been a good route (4 out of 10 to me).
2012 was crap because 2,5 proper mountain stages were "balanced" with 100 km of ITT (3 out of 10 to me). 14km of ITT is a bigger disaster than stages with 40km decents after major climbs.

 

[OlavEH]

I disagree because 2008 had 80km of ITT, 4 MTF + two stages with decent. Alpe d'Huez stage was 200km long, a way better that next year's crap. A good and balanced route (7 out of 10 to me).
2009 had 55km of ITT, 3 MTF and superb stage to Le Grand Bornand. With one more MTF and without annoying stages to Tarbes and Saint Girons it may have been a good route (4 out of 10 to me).
2012 was crap because 2,5 proper mountain stages were "balanced" with 100 km of ITT (3 out of 10 to me). 14km of ITT is a bigger disaster than stages with 40km decents after major climbs.

Two of the MTF in 2008 was to Super Besse and Pratonevoso. Not excatly the toughest of climbs. And there weren't any tough climbs before those either. Pretty lame route. 5/10 from me.

2009 and 2012 was even worse. Only 1 real mountain stage with MTF both years. Verbier and Arcalis in 2009 and Belles Filles and Peyragudes in 2012 are actually pretty crap when they are 2 of 3 MTFs those years. 4/10 both years.

 

[hrotha]

You keep ignoring the ITTs in your analysis.

 

[Netserk]

How is Agnel not a tough climb?

 

[The Hitch]

I think a more interesting discussion is not - how bad is the route, but - what is the reason behind it. I don't understand. Why after all these years has the ASO introduced all these gimmicks and broken so fiercly from the gt requirements it has operated under all these decades. Was there outside pressure from Tinkov? He got pictures of prudehome cheating on his wife and threatens to release them if they don't let him make a route for contador? (Though I think contador would have preferred maybe a few more tt kms). What is it. There are so many changes this year, more than in the last few decades put together. Can't be a coincidence.

 

[OlavEH]

How is Agnel not a tough climb?

It was 110 km from the top of Agnello to the start of Prato Nevoso. I don't think Agnello made much of a difference.

 

[the sceptic]

I think a more interesting discussion is not - how bad is the route, but - why is the reason behind it. I don't understand. Why after all these years has the ASO introduced all these gimmicks and broken so fiercly from the gt requirements it has operated under all these decades. Was there outside pressure from Tinkov? He got pictures of prudehome cheating on his wife and threatens to release them if they don't let him make a route for contador? (Though I think contador would have preferred maybe a few more tt kms). What is it. There are so many changes this year, more than in the last few decades put together. Can't be a coincidence.

They want Contador to do the double and/or they dont want anymore Froome wins is my guess.

Why? Who knows.. I guess Oleg is the highest bidder these days.

 

[Kwibus]

3/10

I really like the first week. Cobbles, Huy, Crosswinds. That's good for an TdF first week.
Once that week passes it's just horrible. The mountain stages are plenty but underwhelming and the lack of an extra TT will destroy this race.

I will watch it anyways and I hope for everyone that we will get to see action before the last 3km of the mountain stages, but I doubt it.

 

[Linkinito]

3/10.

A ****ing trainwreck.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

1/10

There's plenty of good stages and the first week is actually great, but who cares with only 14km of ITT. It's disgusting. I really hope some of the top GC riders skip it because of this abomination of a route.....

 

[DoubleF]

4/10

The ITT and TTT should have been swapped, the ITT is too short and the TTT is too long considering that is relatively deep in the race and some team could face withdrawsa causing their gc riders time losses.
The mountain stages are too short and they lack a mitical queen stage to remember.

 

[LaFlorecita]

Worst GT ever!

I think I might agree. I think the lowest I've rated a parcours so far was 5/10. 1/10 now.

 

[RownhamHill]

I quite like some of it. The cobbles, and the other stages in the first week look fun - I thought this year the first week was great, and hoping for more similar stuff. And the mountain stages look OK to me too (though I don't profess to be a connoisseur - I couldn't say if there are other climbs in any given area that would be 'better') - basically whatever the mountain stages look like on paper, it almost always relies on the riders to make them in any case.

The lack of a decent IT does seem a really odd decision - even if they'd kept the same stages, but run the TTT as the first stage, and the ITT as the latter one I think it would have made for a much more coherent race. But then, maybe it means more climbers might still be in contention later in the race, and presumably with more climbers in form it might encourage the mountain stages to be raced more aggressively from further out (by some of the fringe contenders who normally might have been eliminated by a TT), and lead to more possibilities for GC jeopardy/chaos over a number of days? One can hope anyway.

 

[Red Rick]

There are some good points in the first week but the terribleness and the horror of what they did with the mountains and the TT just compells me to give it a 1. Which leads me to asking

Where's the ****ing 0 option?

 

[Red Rick]

The first week might look amazing, but those stages in the first week of the Tour I expect a huge crashefest, it's not gonna be pretty

 

[Cance > TheRest]

I think the first week looks VERY interesting. The 2nd week ok and the last week is interesting aswell. The reason there's no big individual time trials is for creating more excitement with smaller gaps between the favourites. I don't think thats a bad thing, necessarily. I also applaud that ASO has tried varying the route from previous years, making this one favour climbers for once.

8/10. Hopefully this route can contribute to getting the Tour back to the excitement levels of previous years (2011, 2010, etc)