- May 26, 2009
- 10,230
- 579
- 24,080
Some good profiles here btw - https://www.lequipe.fr/Cyclisme-sur-route/Actualites/Le-parcours-du-tour-de-france-2018-etape-par-etape-dates-villes-et-profils-de-la-105e-edition-du-7-au-29-juillet-2018/840920
First four days look dire. Any TTT should be on day one and be 10km or less - they are terrible for racing and should just be there to present the teams.
Hard to really tell about the next two stages. At least they're hilly? Minus points for Mûr-de-Bretagne again and missing the Tro-Bro Léon ribin.
Bastille Day sounds terrible.
Roubaix stage is good, but it could've been a bit longer.
Le Grand Bornand and Alpe d'Huez stages look good. Shame about the one in between though.
Mende is fine I guess. No other hills they could use in Massif Central?
Pyrenees are quite uninspiring. 218km mountain stage! With uh, 150km of flat road. Fun.
Saint-Lary-Soulan should be interesting, but generally the mountain stages are too short.
The Pau stage is a real joke, and stage 19 hardly looks much better. That's the final mountain stage you picked, really?
Time trial looks about as interesting as a time trial can be. Maybe could be a little less hilly for more balance but *** flat time trials.
Anyway, better than the usual Tour de France routes, but as usual the controlled and cautious racing we always see there will neuter it, especially without Contador around.
Side note: I don't know why people are asking for more time trial. It's like you want only two riders to be able to win..
Ideally routes would be more balanced (even if TTs are truly dire spectacles), but when nearly every GC contender is a weak time trialist you would just be rewarding one or two riders and making the race dull and predictable.
First four days look dire. Any TTT should be on day one and be 10km or less - they are terrible for racing and should just be there to present the teams.
Hard to really tell about the next two stages. At least they're hilly? Minus points for Mûr-de-Bretagne again and missing the Tro-Bro Léon ribin.
Bastille Day sounds terrible.
Roubaix stage is good, but it could've been a bit longer.
Le Grand Bornand and Alpe d'Huez stages look good. Shame about the one in between though.
Mende is fine I guess. No other hills they could use in Massif Central?
Pyrenees are quite uninspiring. 218km mountain stage! With uh, 150km of flat road. Fun.
Saint-Lary-Soulan should be interesting, but generally the mountain stages are too short.
The Pau stage is a real joke, and stage 19 hardly looks much better. That's the final mountain stage you picked, really?
Time trial looks about as interesting as a time trial can be. Maybe could be a little less hilly for more balance but *** flat time trials.
Anyway, better than the usual Tour de France routes, but as usual the controlled and cautious racing we always see there will neuter it, especially without Contador around.
Side note: I don't know why people are asking for more time trial. It's like you want only two riders to be able to win..
Ideally routes would be more balanced (even if TTs are truly dire spectacles), but when nearly every GC contender is a weak time trialist you would just be rewarding one or two riders and making the race dull and predictable.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,598
- 6,853
- 28,180
Re:
That hilly TT is probably equivalent to a flat 45 km. Froome and Dumoulin can take more time than people are expecting TBH.Singer01 said:
What I like:
Roubaix
Mur De Bretagne
What I don`t like:
65km stage which ends on relatively easy climb (long but easy gradient)
TTT
Only one ITT
ADH is not linked well, effectively making it a one climb stage
I gave it a 6. Which is generous for a TDF route.
Roubaix
Mur De Bretagne
What I don`t like:
65km stage which ends on relatively easy climb (long but easy gradient)
TTT
Only one ITT
ADH is not linked well, effectively making it a one climb stage
I gave it a 6. Which is generous for a TDF route.
Re: Re:
True, but couldn`t they have swapped out a flat stage for a 30km flat stage early on. If you want riders to attack why not create a situation in which they are down by 1-2 minutes early
Escarabajo said:
True, but couldn`t they have swapped out a flat stage for a 30km flat stage early on. If you want riders to attack why not create a situation in which they are down by 1-2 minutes early
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,598
- 6,853
- 28,180
A balanced route. A mix of everything. I guess another year without the long hard mountain stages that everyone was expecting. But the route is not that bad. Short stages but hard enough. I think this is one of those routes that will depend on the riders to make the race because of the shortness of some of the critical stages.
I am really hoping for Valverde, Dumoulin and Nibali to go. They shouldn't waste this opportunity.
I am really hoping for Valverde, Dumoulin and Nibali to go. They shouldn't waste this opportunity.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,598
- 6,853
- 28,180
Re:
I think that you are confused. Col de Portet is not an easy climb. In fact is the hardest of the race.Durden93 said:
Re: Re:
Ah, that looks significantly better. I also forgot about the gravel on some of the climbs. Probably a 7 or 8 then.
Netserk said:Durden93 said:
Ah, that looks significantly better. I also forgot about the gravel on some of the climbs. Probably a 7 or 8 then.
- Sep 10, 2017
- 50
- 16
- 8,710
lol
The only problem I have is the lack of the second ITT, a flat, 25-30km one somewhere in the second week would have done it for me. Otherwise everything looks cool, I really do believe the 65km stage will be one of the greatest in the modern cycling, mark my words.
8 seems about right, I am quite happy, but really after that horrendous route last year anything would look fine now.
! Netserk, do something 
A 6. A decent route for the Tour, but with some major issues.
Stage 1-4: Poor, boring and a stupid 35km TTT which ruins the potential GC battle before it begins.
Stage 5: Looks really good but I feel like the y-axis is slightly exaggerated. I need to see the gradients for all the climbs more.
Stage 6: Mur de Bretagne is fine but not that interesting. But the stage is fine: it's a typical first week Tour stage.
Stage 7-8: a sprint on a saturday...
Stage 9: Nice. I don't know quite how hard all the sectors are but its an improvement on the anaemic cobbles of 2015.
Stage 10-12: Individually, all good stages. Stage 10 has a nice final combo and is a good introduction to the mountains. Stage 11 is a valid effort at the short-stage thing, especially as it starts with Bisanne whcih is followed by Col du Pre. After that, barring 4km out of 18 of the Rosier, the gradients die. Which is fine as it could force action earlier, but... it's followed by the queen stage. Sequencing is completely out - Stage 11 should switch with Stage 12. Stage 12 is a classic Alpine trek, but minus points for being excruciatingly unoriginal.
Stage 13: transitional stage
Stage 14-15: Mende, unoriginal but fine. Could've done more. Stage 15 is average. Should go to the break. Not much GC fight.
Stage 16: Good first Pyrennean stage.
Stage 17: Horrendous. 65km is a joke. The first climb is pure sky train territory, and there is a monster MTF waiting. Small chance something will happen on Col de Val Louron Azet, but Portet might be too hard.
Stage 18: sprint in the third week is usual
Stage 19: Bad. Really bad final mountain stage, with a TT the next day. No gradients above 8% post tourmalet, basically.
Stage 20: Bad. Too short and too hilly.
tl;dr: first week is average, some good stages but balanced out by 5 sprints and a TTT. Second week and alps is good, but in the wrong order. Last week bad.
Stage 1-4: Poor, boring and a stupid 35km TTT which ruins the potential GC battle before it begins.
Stage 5: Looks really good but I feel like the y-axis is slightly exaggerated. I need to see the gradients for all the climbs more.
Stage 6: Mur de Bretagne is fine but not that interesting. But the stage is fine: it's a typical first week Tour stage.
Stage 7-8: a sprint on a saturday...
Stage 9: Nice. I don't know quite how hard all the sectors are but its an improvement on the anaemic cobbles of 2015.
Stage 10-12: Individually, all good stages. Stage 10 has a nice final combo and is a good introduction to the mountains. Stage 11 is a valid effort at the short-stage thing, especially as it starts with Bisanne whcih is followed by Col du Pre. After that, barring 4km out of 18 of the Rosier, the gradients die. Which is fine as it could force action earlier, but... it's followed by the queen stage. Sequencing is completely out - Stage 11 should switch with Stage 12. Stage 12 is a classic Alpine trek, but minus points for being excruciatingly unoriginal.
Stage 13: transitional stage
Stage 14-15: Mende, unoriginal but fine. Could've done more. Stage 15 is average. Should go to the break. Not much GC fight.
Stage 16: Good first Pyrennean stage.
Stage 17: Horrendous. 65km is a joke. The first climb is pure sky train territory, and there is a monster MTF waiting. Small chance something will happen on Col de Val Louron Azet, but Portet might be too hard.
Stage 18: sprint in the third week is usual
Stage 19: Bad. Really bad final mountain stage, with a TT the next day. No gradients above 8% post tourmalet, basically.
Stage 20: Bad. Too short and too hilly.
tl;dr: first week is average, some good stages but balanced out by 5 sprints and a TTT. Second week and alps is good, but in the wrong order. Last week bad.
Gave an 8, Really like it, starting to get bored of all these people calling it the 'tour de l'avenir', because there are 2 high mountain stages over 200km which is not really that short. Yes there are some very short stages, but there are also long ones so it is varied. People on here have been desperate for 200km mountain stages and there are 2. Personally I much prefer shorter stages, I would much rather watch an explosive 100km stage to a boring, long, 230+ mountain stage where everyone waits for the final climb. There are lots of new great climbs which people have wanted like the Col de Pre and the Col de Portet, but also some classics like Alpe d Huez. I love the cobble stage and the stage to Quimper. Also I like the final mountain stage, I could mean that people might be tempted to attack on the Tourmalet.
Overall I really like it.
Overall I really like it.
Re:
There are 2 mountain stages over 200km, Luchon and the final moutnain stage to Laruns.
Climbing said:
There are 2 mountain stages over 200km, Luchon and the final moutnain stage to Laruns.
Re:
This route is an absolute caravan of emotions. There are some really interesting traceur favourites - Glieres, Bisanne+Pre+Roselend, Romme+Colombiere, but IMO they're misplaced. I would personally (i.e. not caring about logistics) put AdH first and then follow by Romme+Colobiere and a Bisanne+Pre+Roselend downhll finish in Bourg-Saint-Maurice. In this case i would be ok with a shorter BSM stage, but just 100km is a lil bit ridiculous. Add in l'Hery and Saises from Crest-Voland and i would be happy. As for Pyrenees i would put the Basque ITT first and then follow with Laruns, Pau, Portet and finish it off with Luchon. I don't know, how will they manage to pull off Portet and Glieres as the dirt quality looks bad.
So for now:
+some fine traceur favourites being used
+cobbles and ribins (+some wind potential?)
+i like Portillon before Luchon, it has more bite than it looks like
-atrocious placement of the mountain stages
-please, somebody nuke Mende and Mur de Bretagne
-i have nothing against short stages, but soon the standard will be road stages of ITT length (at least add Bales to the Portet stage)
-change TTT for ITT
This route is an absolute caravan of emotions. There are some really interesting traceur favourites - Glieres, Bisanne+Pre+Roselend, Romme+Colombiere, but IMO they're misplaced. I would personally (i.e. not caring about logistics) put AdH first and then follow by Romme+Colobiere and a Bisanne+Pre+Roselend downhll finish in Bourg-Saint-Maurice. In this case i would be ok with a shorter BSM stage, but just 100km is a lil bit ridiculous. Add in l'Hery and Saises from Crest-Voland and i would be happy. As for Pyrenees i would put the Basque ITT first and then follow with Laruns, Pau, Portet and finish it off with Luchon. I don't know, how will they manage to pull off Portet and Glieres as the dirt quality looks bad.
So for now:
+some fine traceur favourites being used
+cobbles and ribins (+some wind potential?)
+i like Portillon before Luchon, it has more bite than it looks like
-atrocious placement of the mountain stages
-please, somebody nuke Mende and Mur de Bretagne
-i have nothing against short stages, but soon the standard will be road stages of ITT length (at least add Bales to the Portet stage)
-change TTT for ITT
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,598
- 6,853
- 28,180
Although the cobbles always make for a great spectacle there are also possibilities of eliminating one of the big contenders. I hate to see anyone of them going that early for those reasons.
I am surprised at some of the responses in here. Sometimes I wonder if we are looking at the same profiles.
@ RedRick who is going to control a 65 km stage like that? Not even Sky can do that.
I am surprised at some of the responses in here. Sometimes I wonder if we are looking at the same profiles.
@ RedRick who is going to control a 65 km stage like that? Not even Sky can do that.
- Jun 30, 2014
- 7,060
- 2
- 0
- Feb 18, 2015
- 13,818
- 9,804
- 28,180
I don't think I've ever had a harder time rating a route. There are so many things I love and hate about this route at the same time. The thing I like most about this route is that we get a return of medium mountain stages. Such a hilly stage in the first week is something we probably haven't seen in the tour since 2014. The cobbles are great and could have a huge impact on the gc.
I like the design of all three alps stages. Romme-Colombiere-Le Grand Bornand is one of my favorite stage finishes for mountain stages in france and I can't understand why the aso let us wait so long before they used these two climbs again. The climbs used in the 11th stage partly used to be wet dreams of cycling fans and now they finally become reality, and then the last alps stage is only the 2nd tdf stage with 3 HC climbs since 2011 and I really like the return of Montevernier as well. Then the central massif is my personal highlight, not because these stages are so incredibly well designed but because I didn't see this coming. A murito finish on stage 14 and a medium mountain stage with a really hard last climb, which is quite far away from the finish though. I mean when was the last time we had no flat stage on the penultimate weekend of a tour which uses the pyrenees after the alps. And even the pyrenees have positive aspects like one of the most brutal mtf's ever used in the tdf, and actually I seem to be the only one who doesn't hate the Aubisque stage. It's decent as the last mountain stage since this is a stage where riders either don't attack at all or attack quite far away from the finish, and since it's the last mountain stage I just hope the latter will be the case. The descent might also be an interesting last point to attack. I don't exactly like the first pyrenees stage, but then again thank god they use the portillon as the last climb and not the Peyresurde or the Bales which we have seen way too often in the last decade.
But as I wrote, there is also a lot not to like. For example the possibly worst first four stages in gt history. Three flat stages for Kittel and to top it off a way too long TTT. Can't wait for Froome being between 30 seconds and 2 minutes in front of all other gc contenders after stage 3 without making one single solo effort. Then the 3 alps stages are simply in the wrong direction. Put stage 12 before stage 11 and this route gets a lot better and I even think that this shouldn't be problematic logistically since all the stage starts and finishes are quite close to each other.
Then in the pyrenees we have the same problem with he stage order again. If you want a very short stage to deliver you usually have to put it after a rest day or after an extremely hard and long mountain stage. Look up all great short gt stages of the last decade and you'll see that this is almost always the case. This time the short stage comes after a long but definitely not after a hard stage. The domestiques won't be very tired but I fear cycling fans will be after watching that 65 km stage. I'm generally not against short stages but as I already mentioned the placement is important and it's stupid to make a short stage with such a hard mtf. Which gc contender will attack early with that brutal ascent in mind? Ofc the last climb could still create carnage but I don't think that's what the organizers wanted. Why don't they instead make this a long and hard mountain stage to tire the whole peloton out and then make the following stage a short ambush stage. You could even stick with the Lourdes-Laruns plan but just go directly to the bottom of the toumalet and let the last 100 k of the stage untouched. The stage would be 135 kilometers long and in my opinion it would be just like a short mountain stage should be. Ofc that also means you have to swith the order of the stages and make the flat stage to pau (not flat but even more importantly) stage 19. There would be 3 mountain stages in a row but at least the riders won't be afraid of an ITT on the following day when they climb the Aubisque. Then add 20 flat kilometers to the hilly ITT and I think you have a very decent route with slightly too many flat stages.
All in all I gave it a 6. I might rate it lower if this was a giro route, but I'm mostly happy that it's not as horrible as last years celebration of flat stages.
I like the design of all three alps stages. Romme-Colombiere-Le Grand Bornand is one of my favorite stage finishes for mountain stages in france and I can't understand why the aso let us wait so long before they used these two climbs again. The climbs used in the 11th stage partly used to be wet dreams of cycling fans and now they finally become reality, and then the last alps stage is only the 2nd tdf stage with 3 HC climbs since 2011 and I really like the return of Montevernier as well. Then the central massif is my personal highlight, not because these stages are so incredibly well designed but because I didn't see this coming. A murito finish on stage 14 and a medium mountain stage with a really hard last climb, which is quite far away from the finish though. I mean when was the last time we had no flat stage on the penultimate weekend of a tour which uses the pyrenees after the alps. And even the pyrenees have positive aspects like one of the most brutal mtf's ever used in the tdf, and actually I seem to be the only one who doesn't hate the Aubisque stage. It's decent as the last mountain stage since this is a stage where riders either don't attack at all or attack quite far away from the finish, and since it's the last mountain stage I just hope the latter will be the case. The descent might also be an interesting last point to attack. I don't exactly like the first pyrenees stage, but then again thank god they use the portillon as the last climb and not the Peyresurde or the Bales which we have seen way too often in the last decade.
But as I wrote, there is also a lot not to like. For example the possibly worst first four stages in gt history. Three flat stages for Kittel and to top it off a way too long TTT. Can't wait for Froome being between 30 seconds and 2 minutes in front of all other gc contenders after stage 3 without making one single solo effort. Then the 3 alps stages are simply in the wrong direction. Put stage 12 before stage 11 and this route gets a lot better and I even think that this shouldn't be problematic logistically since all the stage starts and finishes are quite close to each other.
Then in the pyrenees we have the same problem with he stage order again. If you want a very short stage to deliver you usually have to put it after a rest day or after an extremely hard and long mountain stage. Look up all great short gt stages of the last decade and you'll see that this is almost always the case. This time the short stage comes after a long but definitely not after a hard stage. The domestiques won't be very tired but I fear cycling fans will be after watching that 65 km stage. I'm generally not against short stages but as I already mentioned the placement is important and it's stupid to make a short stage with such a hard mtf. Which gc contender will attack early with that brutal ascent in mind? Ofc the last climb could still create carnage but I don't think that's what the organizers wanted. Why don't they instead make this a long and hard mountain stage to tire the whole peloton out and then make the following stage a short ambush stage. You could even stick with the Lourdes-Laruns plan but just go directly to the bottom of the toumalet and let the last 100 k of the stage untouched. The stage would be 135 kilometers long and in my opinion it would be just like a short mountain stage should be. Ofc that also means you have to swith the order of the stages and make the flat stage to pau (not flat but even more importantly) stage 19. There would be 3 mountain stages in a row but at least the riders won't be afraid of an ITT on the following day when they climb the Aubisque. Then add 20 flat kilometers to the hilly ITT and I think you have a very decent route with slightly too many flat stages.
All in all I gave it a 6. I might rate it lower if this was a giro route, but I'm mostly happy that it's not as horrible as last years celebration of flat stages.
- May 4, 2011
- 4,285
- 783
- 17,680
Re: Re:
La Rosiere paid for the stage finish, not Bourg St. M. They have wanted a stage for years and were always turned down before now.
They had to fit La Rosiere in somewhere.
railxmig said:
La Rosiere paid for the stage finish, not Bourg St. M. They have wanted a stage for years and were always turned down before now.
They had to fit La Rosiere in somewhere.
Re:
I also think this is about right. Anytime you throw me some cobbles and gravel, as a die-hard Classics fan, you get bonus points. I still expect to see Froome on the top step though. His team is just too deep.
Alexandre B. said:
I also think this is about right. Anytime you throw me some cobbles and gravel, as a die-hard Classics fan, you get bonus points. I still expect to see Froome on the top step though. His team is just too deep.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 794
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
-
Teams & Riders The Great Big Cycling Transfers, Extensions, and Rumours Thread- Started by RedheadDane
- Replies: 13K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram