Since as yet no one gave a shot at it: do as the thread title says.
The debate about it has been going on a few days at the tour de france 2016 prediction thread, though.
For me, if you look at it from a pure objective point of view, and aim for a balanced course, it has some major flaws:
1) it lacks a long (50+ km) flat (really flat, not like stage 13) itt, maybe in adition to the hilly tt of stage 13
2) it lacks a long multi-climb mountain stage, preferably ending with a downhill and preferably with some high altitude climbs, in the second half of the race
3) stage finishes in St Gervais and Mégève should be switched: the mtt stays an mtt (a bit shorter, and a bit more difficult) but Signal de Bisanne becomes way better placed
If you take this in account, I'd say: 7
Still, it is waaaaaaaaay better than the courses of 2015 or 2013, and if you take the strenghts and weaknesses of the contenders into account, it can provide for some entertaining racing. So, from a cycling fan's point of view, it deserves an 8.
The debate about it has been going on a few days at the tour de france 2016 prediction thread, though.
For me, if you look at it from a pure objective point of view, and aim for a balanced course, it has some major flaws:
1) it lacks a long (50+ km) flat (really flat, not like stage 13) itt, maybe in adition to the hilly tt of stage 13
2) it lacks a long multi-climb mountain stage, preferably ending with a downhill and preferably with some high altitude climbs, in the second half of the race
3) stage finishes in St Gervais and Mégève should be switched: the mtt stays an mtt (a bit shorter, and a bit more difficult) but Signal de Bisanne becomes way better placed
If you take this in account, I'd say: 7
Still, it is waaaaaaaaay better than the courses of 2015 or 2013, and if you take the strenghts and weaknesses of the contenders into account, it can provide for some entertaining racing. So, from a cycling fan's point of view, it deserves an 8.