Rate the 2016 Giro route!

[Ataraxus]

TdF 2012 had some well designed stages but the route had other problems:
- extremely bad placements of some good stages (Bellegarde sur Valserine, Porrentruy)
- It has THE most stupid extra lap ever (Limoux-Foix) which will never get old as an example for stupid race designing
- Besides the stages listed here almost everything was crap. Only three more hilly stags, of which one had a disastrous design, 3 TT's and I think 8 sprint stages, which is way too much considering that the uphill finishes of the hilly stages were so easy that they ended in bunch sprints too

Its a little bit like the giro 2012 which even had some of the best gt stages of the last decade (stage 17, 19) and some more great stages (6, 12, 15) but the combination was just extremely bad.

I hope that the giro 2016 wont have the same problem, but we all have to agree that the placements of the stages are anything but perfect. However there are so many good stages that I don't think this can be as bad as 2012

The 2012 Tour had some well designed stages (only two in fact) for Tour standards only.
Let's not fool ourselves. Excpecting some one to attack in Grand Colombiere and hold on through the 5% slopes of Richemond and the next 20km into Valserine is unrealistic these days. Especially when strong teams are chasing behind.
- The length and the slopes of LaToussuire (18 km at 6%) is just a bad combination for considering long range attacks IMO. Nibali was able to hold his attack till the end this year, but the race conditions were quite different.
-The only well designed stage IMO was the Peyragudes. And design-wise, that Tour doesn't come close to the Giro 2012. I still cannot believe how the stages into Cortina and Pampeago did not deliver.
Giau is more difficult than Joux-Plane. Zero action in Cortina can be easily immagined as zero action in a Joux Plane-Morzine stage. It just never happens in the Tour. It was totally the riders and the race situations which ruined the racing in that Giro.

 

[Red Rick]

That Tour route was an abomination

 

[Valv.Piti]

Giggs, I dont agree at all with your take on the 2012 Giro. The riders rode like total pussies. Sure, there could have been a big TT before stages 17, 19 and 20, but Rodriguez KNEW there would be a TT afterwards and thus should have accounted for that loss. The 2 stages in the dolomites were extremely tough stages, but nothing simply happened. Because of the route? I refuse to believe so. Climbs as hard as those would normally deliver, but simply didnt since the riders attending either were past their prime or just riding cowardly and super boring. I would honestly still much rather rewatch the Tour 2012 since we at least had some good stages and some proper gaps, even on much lesser mountainstages. Porrrentruy stands out as a very good stages, so does La Toussuire, especially compared what we witnessed in the Giro. When you see climbs like Manghen, Lavaze, Pampeago, Giau, Mortirolo, Stelvio etc. you automatically expects much more, but the Giro 2012 still stands out as by far the most boring race I have ever watched compared to what I expected - and I dont think the route was the problem, but the riders.

 

[hrotha]

The thing with the 2012 Giro is that it was so backloaded everybody waited for the last three stages, and that created a very conservative inertia that was very hard to overcome even in those two last mountain stages. The final ITT wasn't all that important, really, because in the end, coming into it, every contender was still in the position they were aiming for, except for Scarponi, who lost his podium spot on the last mountain stage due to a tactical move. So it did decide the race in the end, but it didn't dictate how anyone had to ride.

Now, with a decent ITT before the mountains, the likes of Scarponi and Basso would have had to do something if they didn't want to be completely irrelevant in the race, and Purito... well, Purito would have ridden exactly the same, but that's beside the point. And since the climbers couldn't have afforded to be so conservative, the race dynamics might well have been different throughout the race, with more attacks and greater gaps, which might have led to more interesting stages on the last two days on the mountains.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

The thing with the 2012 Giro is that it was so backloaded everybody waited for the last three stages, and that created a very conservative inertia that was very hard to overcome even in those two last mountain stages. The final ITT wasn't all that important, really, because in the end, coming into it, every contender was still in the position they were aiming for, except for Scarponi, who lost his podium spot on the last mountain stage due to a tactical move. So it did decide the race in the end, but it didn't dictate how anyone had to ride.

Now, with a decent ITT before the mountains, the likes of Scarponi and Basso would have had to do something if they didn't want to be completely irrelevant in the race, and Purito... well, Purito would have ridden exactly the same, but that's beside the point. And since the climbers couldn't have afforded to be so conservative, the race dynamics might well have been different throughout the race, with more attacks and greater gaps, which might have led to more interesting stages on the last two days on the mountains.

But that it was backloaded didnt change anything regarding fx. Basso. He still had to go at it at Giau (which he did in his Basso-way) but simply wasnt too strong and the same can be said about Scarponi to some extend. Had he the legs of 2010-2011, he would've obviously have went in both dolomite-stages, but I believe he simply couldnt and thus settled for a podium. Yes, a big ITT would have shaken things up, but I honestly dont think the stages would have been ridden differently due to Basso/Scarponi being past their primes, Rodriguez doing what only Rodriguez does and Hesjedal.. yeah, well, Hesjedal. No need to expand on that.

 

[staubsauger]

Re: Re:

The thing with the 2012 Giro is that it was so backloaded everybody waited for the last three stages, and that created a very conservative inertia that was very hard to overcome even in those two last mountain stages. The final ITT wasn't all that important, really, because in the end, coming into it, every contender was still in the position they were aiming for, except for Scarponi, who lost his podium spot on the last mountain stage due to a tactical move. So it did decide the race in the end, but it didn't dictate how anyone had to ride.

Now, with a decent ITT before the mountains, the likes of Scarponi and Basso would have had to do something if they didn't want to be completely irrelevant in the race, and Purito... well, Purito would have ridden exactly the same, but that's beside the point. And since the climbers couldn't have afforded to be so conservative, the race dynamics might well have been different throughout the race, with more attacks and greater gaps, which might have led to more interesting stages on the last two days on the mountains.

But that it was backloaded didnt change anything regarding fx. Basso. He still had to go at it at Giau (which he did in his Basso-way) but simply wasnt too strong and the same can be said about Scarponi to some extend. Had he the legs of 2010-2011, he would've obviously have went in both dolomite-stages, but I believe he simply couldnt and thus settled for a podium. Yes, a big ITT would have shaken things up, but I honestly dont think the stages would have been ridden differently due to Basso/Scarponi being past their primes, Rodriguez doing what only Rodriguez does and Hesjedal.. yeah, well, Hesjedal. No need to expand on that.

That Giro probably was Pozzo's once in a lifetime chance if he had brought his Trentino shape to the Giro. He couldn't know. So it became Hesjedal's once in a lifetime chance.

It still could've been Cunego's second win, who attacked a few times but wasn't strong enough. So was Rujano.

That was a very weird Giro. Nearly anybody was out of prime shape or peaked wrong. So we barely saw any notable attacks except of De Gendt on the Mortirolo - Stilfser Joch stage.

Wouldn't blame the route for that. There were like 5 guys that failed to perform. Even an outsider like Intxausti got sick the last week. That Giro probably could've been won by a peak shape Fuglsang without his illness. That's why Bruyneel was right to send Fränk Schleck and he was an upper goof for not showing up motivated.

 

[Taxus4a]

2012 giro was one the most serious and valuables Tours of the last years in cycling.
i understand people just want to see attacks and people taking risk, but it was an endurace battle.
Just Kreuziger had mistakes and blow up, but the level was hight.

I dont like how people talk here about Hesjedal or Purito. Purito with the same level of that Giro has droped Contador and froome at his best, and no only in a 2 km long 15 % finish. Purito attacked on Mortirolo that year with Stelvio remaining, and he has won la Volta with a very long attack with Tondo.

Hesjedal showed this Giro how strong he is. he had bad luck the first medium mountain stage when he couldnt by little to cacth Astana group. he is not the best in the forst week, and he is not so good with hot, but he just had bad luck, the rest of this Giro he was always in breaks and he managed to be one of the best in GC. When he wanst in breaks, he showed in Ologno he was stronger than Contador, (as I predited before the Giro, by the way) and in Finestre he was better as well (ohh, that is not weakness of Contador, that is a mistake of him that causes a bad moment.. really?.. the same in bola del mundo?)

The fact is that Saxo and Astana has very strong teams and they controled tha race the way any rider coud alone to face that dictatorship. Other way and Hesjedal win the Giro.

 

[portugal11]

Re:

2012 giro was one the most serious and valuables Tours of the last years in cycling.
i understand people just want to see attacks and people taking risk, but it was an endurace battle.
Just Kreuziger had mistakes and blow up, but the level was hight.

I dont like how people talk here about Hesjedal or Purito. Purito with the same level of that Giro has droped Contador and froome at his best, and no only in a 2 km long 15 % finish. Purito attacked on Mortirolo that year with Stelvio remaining, and he has won la Volta with a very long attack with Tondo.

Hesjedal showed this Giro how strong he is. he had bad luck the first medium mountain stage when he couldnt by little to cacth Astana group. he is not the best in the forst week, and he is not so good with hot, but he just had bad luck, the rest of this Giro he was always in breaks and he managed to be one of the best in GC. When he wanst in breaks, he showed in Ologno he was stronger than Contador, (as I predited before the Giro, by the way) and in Finestre he was better as well (ohh, that is not weakness of Contador, that is a mistake of him that causes a bad moment.. really?.. the same in bola del mundo?)

The fact is that Saxo and Astana has very strong teams and they controled tha race the way any rider coud alone to face that dictatorship. Other way and Hesjedal win the Giro.

i can't see your posts anymore...

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Giggs, I dont agree at all with your take on the 2012 Giro. The riders rode like total pussies. Sure, there could have been a big TT before stages 17, 19 and 20, but Rodriguez KNEW there would be a TT afterwards and thus should have accounted for that loss. The 2 stages in the dolomites were extremely tough stages, but nothing simply happened. Because of the route? I refuse to believe so. Climbs as hard as those would normally deliver, but simply didnt since the riders attending either were past their prime or just riding cowardly and super boring. I would honestly still much rather rewatch the Tour 2012 since we at least had some good stages and some proper gaps, even on much lesser mountainstages. Porrrentruy stands out as a very good stages, so does La Toussuire, especially compared what we witnessed in the Giro. When you see climbs like Manghen, Lavaze, Pampeago, Giau, Mortirolo, Stelvio etc. you automatically expects much more, but the Giro 2012 still stands out as by far the most boring race I have ever watched compared to what I expected - and I dont think the route was the problem, but the riders.

The stages in the last week were great, no doubt about that (I even wrote that the two penultimate mountain stages were two of the best stages of the last decade) but the overall placement of stages still wasnt good. However you are absolutely right that the route wasnt bad enough that you could say the only reason for the bad racing was the route. But still if we talk about the route there are two things which are definitely also a factor for the bad racing:
a) No good medium mountain stages. Two 2nd category uphill finishes with the top some kilometers before the finish and no big climbs before, simply don't work, and the rest of the first two weeks wasnt very good too, with some exceptions like sestri levante.
b) the absence of a decent, early ITT was another huge mistake by the race designers. Its just an extremely bad sign for a route if there are no time gaps before the first mountain stage although that one comes near the end of week 2.
At the end we only had some great stages which didn't fit together very well.
However I have to say that I generally don't completely disagree with you. The problem was that the riders didnt want to attack, and we have seen great racing in worse designed gt's.

 

[The Hitch]

It wasn't the 2012 TDF route that sucked. Just the fact that one team had like 5 or 6 of the strongest 8 riders in the race, including the by far away 1st and 2nd strongest ones (usual Nibali fanboy crap aside)

 

[Red Rick]

I disagree. Only good stages designes were the Toussuire stage and the one Pinot won. Toussuire was the only real alpine stage, and the Grand Colombier stage was designed to doom all attacks on said Grand Colombier. Then you had Foix with that horrible finishing circuit, the Queen Pyrenees stage with the Aspin from the easy side as the penultimate climb, which makes attacking on the Tourmalet suicide against a strong team, and to finish off we had Peyragudes as the final MTF, which is terrible as it doesn't favour attacking from more than 3km out.

To balance that, we had 100km of ITT's.

ASO couldn't have known Sky would be so ridiculous that Tour, but most stages were just made to be controllable either way. That said, Sky would've still gotten 1-2 if the route had been good, but the Froome-Wiggins dynamic might have been even funnier.

 

[Taxus4a]

It wasn't the 2012 TDF route that sucked. Just the fact that one team had like 5 or 6 of the strongest 8 riders in the race, including the by far away 1st and 2nd strongest ones (usual Nibali fanboy crap aside)

4 of the 10 maybe, no more:

Wiggins, Froome (the 2 stronger ridersof the race), Porte and Rogers.

Anyway Porte was 34 and Rogers 23 of that race. it is not the same to be very strong in the key moments that to be strong all the race, so for me is clear than Zubeldia (6th) was stronger than Rogers and maybe than Porte.

Rogers has been similar strong later in other teams, even better than Contador in Dauphiné, winning in Zoncolan,etc...

Porte was very strong in Saxo and will show in BMC similar level.

It would have been very good for cycling to have Wiggo and Froome in different teams. it is a pity GB, the same as Spain, has just 1 WT team.

When a team can be so strong the is nothing to do.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re:

The 2012 Tour route was a necessary gamble, I think. Someone had to try to force the climbers to attack from afar, but it didn't work because Wiggins and Froome were both the best time-trialists and the best climbers, and had the best team in the race. But on paper there were enough opportunities to take back time.

The 2012 TDF route wasn't great, that's for sure. But we were due for a course that favoured the rouleurs given that there hadn't been a lot of time trialling in the TDF since 2007.

And we're rather due again....

Some new experimentations with medium mountains were okay. The extra 13kms around Foix was bad, but the introduction of the Filles (sorry, don't know how to spell most of these) climb was a big step forward, and the Grand Columbere stage was alright. I mean that tough climb topped out with 43 kms to go, not all that dissimilar to stages with Telegraphe-Galibier to Briancon and Motorolo to Aprica. Okay, the Grand Columbere is not as tough a climb, but they did throw in that small Richemond climb immediately after it, and really there wasn't much in the way of flat road until the finish. Not the organisers fault that the riders chose to ride the climb of the day pretty easily.

To experiment with only three stages in the Alps and Pyrenees isn't a bad idea once in a while. But if you are going to do that then please give us some serious stages once we do get to those high mountains. Two of those three stages were under 150 kms. That is pathetic.

Back to the 2016 Giro. I still don't mind the MTT immediately after the queen stage. I think that if it was a lesser mountain stage then the riders would take it easier, but not in this instance. Take the 2009 TDF. The ITT was held immediately after the queen stage, so shouldn't the riders have taken that stage easily? As it turned out the stage to Le Grand Bornand produced the best racing of the entire Tour. And a 41 km rolling ITT is probably harder and more decisive than an 8% 10 km MTT.

 

[Escarabajo]

I just gave it an 8 after seeing the Vuelta route. Makes the Giro route look awesome.

 

[staubsauger]

I actually begin to prefer the way the Giro designs it's course since the days of Vegni.

One year it's a route for pure climbers, one year it's for allrounders, one year a bit tt heavy.

The Tour tries to be a climbers Tour nowadays, but ain't one anyway. The Vuelta is based on pure cheap entertainment. Nothing wrong with it as it ain't no real gt anyway.

The Giro mixes it up while nearly always being the real biggest gt of the year to cycling passionists and purists. Thumbs up for that .

 

[Scarponi]

Re:

I disagree. Only good stages designes were the Toussuire stage and the one Pinot won. Toussuire was the only real alpine stage, and the Grand Colombier stage was designed to doom all attacks on said Grand Colombier. Then you had Foix with that horrible finishing circuit, the Queen Pyrenees stage with the Aspin from the easy side as the penultimate climb, which makes attacking on the Tourmalet suicide against a strong team, and to finish off we had Peyragudes as the final MTF, which is terrible as it doesn't favour attacking from more than 3km out.

To balance that, we had 100km of ITT's.

ASO couldn't have known Sky would be so ridiculous that Tour, but most stages were just made to be controllable either way. That said, Sky would've still gotten 1-2 if the route had been good, but the Froome-Wiggins dynamic might have been even funnier.

Honestly before we knew of that SKY performance in 2012 when I saw that route I thought it was going to be the easiest title defense for Cadel Evans with those 100km TT. If he turned up in any sort of form he could have won without Froome and Wiggins there

 

[railxmig]

Re:

the Queen Pyrenees stage with the Aspin from the easy side as the penultimate climb, which makes attacking on the Tourmalet suicide against a strong team

I'm worried even widhout a strong team an attack on Tourmalet would be a suicide. Don't forget that after Aspin there was still Peyresourde and the flattish run-in to it (about 8km long). Only possible action to get more time than usual would be by attacking at the bottom of Peyresourde and then clocking records uphill and downhill.

 

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

The thing with the 2012 Giro is that it was so backloaded everybody waited for the last three stages, and that created a very conservative inertia that was very hard to overcome even in those two last mountain stages. The final ITT wasn't all that important, really, because in the end, coming into it, every contender was still in the position they were aiming for, except for Scarponi, who lost his podium spot on the last mountain stage due to a tactical move. So it did decide the race in the end, but it didn't dictate how anyone had to ride.

Now, with a decent ITT before the mountains, the likes of Scarponi and Basso would have had to do something if they didn't want to be completely irrelevant in the race, and Purito... well, Purito would have ridden exactly the same, but that's beside the point. And since the climbers couldn't have afforded to be so conservative, the race dynamics might well have been different throughout the race, with more attacks and greater gaps, which might have led to more interesting stages on the last two days on the mountains.

But that it was backloaded didnt change anything regarding fx. Basso. He still had to go at it at Giau (which he did in his Basso-way) but simply wasnt too strong and the same can be said about Scarponi to some extend. Had he the legs of 2010-2011, he would've obviously have went in both dolomite-stages, but I believe he simply couldnt and thus settled for a podium. Yes, a big ITT would have shaken things up, but I honestly dont think the stages would have been ridden differently due to Basso/Scarponi being past their primes, Rodriguez doing what only Rodriguez does and Hesjedal.. yeah, well, Hesjedal. No need to expand on that.

That Giro probably was Pozzo's once in a lifetime chance if he had brought his Trentino shape to the Giro. He couldn't know. So it became Hesjedal's once in a lifetime chance.

It still could've been Cunego's second win, who attacked a few times but wasn't strong enough. So was Rujano.

That was a very weird Giro. Nearly anybody was out of prime shape or peaked wrong. So we barely saw any notable attacks except of De Gendt on the Mortirolo - Stilfser Joch stage.

Wouldn't blame the route for that. There were like 5 guys that failed to perform. Even an outsider like Intxausti got sick the last week. That Giro probably could've been won by a peak shape Fuglsang without his illness. That's why Bruyneel was right to send Fränk Schleck and he was an upper goof for not showing up motivated.

The route was bad, but you're right it was a pretty weird Giro with a few guys being past their prime or peaking at the wrong time, Pozzovivo in his Trentino monster shape would have killed people in that Giro, but he's a fragile climber who often get sick...
IMO the 2016 Giro is a solid 7, it has a few decent medium mountain stages but too many sprint stages and bad weather could ruin the race. If you'd swap stage 15 with stage 16 it would be a solid 8, that alone would make the race much better.
If we're really lucky we could get something like the 2007 Giro Briançon stage on stage 14, that stage was also right before a MTT that wasn't designed to create big gaps, so fingers crossed.

 

[Ataraxus]

So the hardest stage of the year most probably will belong to the Giro (Corvara one).
Doubt the Suisse and Dauphine will feat any harder profile with more altitude climbing than the Corvara stage.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

So the hardest stage of the year most probably will belong to the Giro (Corvara one).
Doubt the Suisse and Dauphine will feat any harder profile with more altitude climbing than the Corvara stage.

Yep. Saint Anna is up there, but given the length, Corvara is harder on paper at least. The stage to Aubisque (which i LOVE due to the memories of me me watching all the Pyrenees in a French bar with daddy and a Dutch guy) is also up there, but it seems there are too much flat. The Tour doesnt really have a Queen stages, but on the other hand have a lot of have semi hard to hard mountain stages. I think, overall, that the Tour has the best route, slighty better than the Giro.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

So the hardest stage of the year most probably will belong to the Giro (Corvara one).
Doubt the Suisse and Dauphine will feat any harder profile with more altitude climbing than the Corvara stage.

Actually I dont think that stage is as hard as most people think. Its a very good stage but that doesnt automatically mean it is hard too. If this stage would have tdf categorizations the giau would probably be the only HC climb, and even here you can argue that its only 1st cat. Pordoi and Valparola are probably 1st category, Sella and Campolongo probably 2nd or 3rd category and Grödnerjoch 3rd or 4th. The stage length makes it harder but still I'm not sure if it beats every other stage of the year.
Stage 20 has two HC, one 1st category and one third category climbs. However considering the stage is only 134 km's long I'd say the stage is clearly easier.
Stage 14 of the vuelta has two HC and two 1st category climbs on about 200 kilometers. IMO this one probably takes the title, which is a bit ironic because the only real multi climb mountain stage of the Vuelta is maybe the hardest stage of the year.

Nevertheless I still prefer well designed stages and not simply hard ones and although the tour and the giro don't have super hard stages they are full of medium mountain stages and generally don't have too many mtf's. Thats way better than a gt full of difficult mtf's like the vuelta this year (actually almost every year but this one in particular)

 

[Red Rick]

Fully agree with Gigs here, stage 20 is crazy hard for a 130km stage

 

[Ataraxus]

Re: Re:

So the hardest stage of the year most probably will belong to the Giro (Corvara one).
Doubt the Suisse and Dauphine will feat any harder profile with more altitude climbing than the Corvara stage.

Actually I dont think that stage is as hard as most people think. Its a very good stage but that doesnt automatically mean it is hard too. If this stage would have tdf categorizations the giau would probably be the only HC climb, and even here you can argue that its only 1st cat. Pordoi and Valparola are probably 1st category, Sella and Campolongo probably 2nd or 3rd category and Grödnerjoch 3rd or 4th. The stage length makes it harder but still I'm not sure if it beats every other stage of the year.
Stage 20 has two HC, one 1st category and one third category climbs. However considering the stage is only 134 km's long I'd say the stage is clearly easier.
Stage 14 of the vuelta has two HC and two 1st category climbs on about 200 kilometers. IMO this one probably takes the title, which is a bit ironic because the only real multi climb mountain stage of the Vuelta is maybe the hardest stage of the year.

Nevertheless I still prefer well designed stages and not simply hard ones and although the tour and the giro don't have super hard stages they are full of medium mountain stages and generally don't have too many mtf's. Thats way better than a gt full of difficult mtf's like the vuelta this year (actually almost every year but this one in particular)

I've compared the Corvara and Aubisque stages and they truly go head to head.

-The lengths are at the 200km borderline (Corvara slightly longer). Even
-Both have ~50km of categorised climbing. Even
-The Aubisque stage has 4900m of altitude climbing whereas Corvara has 5200m. Advantage Corvara
-PSM and Aubisque are two HC climbs and The Corvara stage has none (I don't consider Giau from ponte Codalonga to be a HC climb) however it is steeper than anything in the Aubisque stage. Still advantage Aubisque.
-Corvara stage passes 5 times the limit of 2000m whereas Aubisque reaches 1700m to its max. Advantage Corvara.
-From the Pordoi onwards there is no flat in the Giro stage whereas the false flats between the French climbs in the Vuelta kill all the action and give possibility to rest your legs. Advantage Corvara.

I think the Giro stage has the slight advantage of being the hardest stage of 2016 but as you said the design is much more important for good racing.

 

[Brullnux]

I think the Giro one is both harder and better compared to the Tour de France, sorry I meant Vuelta a Norte España y Francia stage.

It's a lot better in my book, actually. The Vuelta one is just who can climb Aubisque the fastest after 3 anæmically raced climbs beforehand.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

I think the Giro one is both harder and better compared to the Tour de France, sorry I meant Vuelta a Norte España y Francia stage.

It's a lot better in my book, actually. The Vuelta one is just who can climb Aubisque the fastest after 3 anæmically raced climbs beforehand.

Well, if we start to consider how hard a stage will be ridden too, I think neither will be the hardest. In the giro stage there is a MTT the next day so I wouldnt expect any attacks on the giau. In the vuelta stage the hardest climb is the last one, so I also don't expect anything before it.
So maybe stage 20 of the giro or the tdf will be the hardest, because if the gc is still open it will be a massacre right from the beginning.