Rate the 2019 Giro d'Italia Route!

[May0maniac]

Re: Re:

People also raged about the waste of the Finestre, as it should never be so early in a stage. But I think that stage delivered a little bit more than the Sappada stage.

Still, the Sappada stage was one of the better mountain stages the last years. It's not much likely we'll see action more than the last few kms on the Lago di Serru stage and the Anterselva stage. Probably not on the Croce di Aune stage either. And we're still missing a Apenninne mountain stage.

You could also say that it was good because Yates was still in insane form and Froome had a bad day. If they had been more normal, the stage would not have been good, and then retrospectively the route would maybe have been proven to not be as well-designed as people had thought.

Sometimes, people forget that what we see play out may be an outlier - it's just a bit difficult to know what the norm is for every single stage as it is only ridden once.

Sappada was great stage design + placed after a Zoncolan MTF and before a rest day, that's the perfect storm.

For me it's a 7, a solid route with a sequence of great stages, stage 19 is bad, but stage 20 has potential, the first week is a bit to weak and would need a hard road stage, doesn't have to be a MTF.

The Cuneo-Pinerolo stage gets hate because it's Cuneo-Pinerolo and not a Coppi tribute, but in the context of the whole route that stage and the Antholz stage actually make sense, Nivolet is great, Courmayeur even better, the Lombardia stage it actually a proper GdL without the Muro and right after those stages and before a rest day, awesome. Then we have an epic Tappone with Gavia+Mortirolo right after the MTF and an ok medium mountain stage after that, that sequence of stages is brutal and if the gaps aren't too big after that we can still expect fireworks on stage 20.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

.

I don't really have a clue how the racing is going to be. I think that cycling fans, in general, have a tendency to overestimate the impact of route designs on how races unfold. Rather, I think the causality is often opposite. Fans praise the route after the race is held, because they don't always hit accurately with their predictions. So the strong correlation between good routes and good races is not univocal. Although there are trends, ofcourse.

Well, you could compare the action on stages including climbs like Mortirolo, Finestre and similar to stages where there is 30 kms of flat before the last tough MTF.......

A stage like this year's Sappada stage were pointed out as good stage design immidiately after the presentation last year. And that stage certainly delivered!

If that route is a 9, the scale should go far higher than 10.

People also raged about the waste of the Finestre, as it should never be so early in a stage. But I think that stage delivered a little bit more than the Sappada stage.

Regarding your last point: People have a tendency to use some sort of weird logarithmic stage where every tiny little thorn in their eyes costs a point, quickly reducing the grade to 1-3, which frankly is ridiculous, when 1 should be for the worst route imaginable (21 flat stages, no TT, a confirmation by the organisers that stages will be cancelled in the event of wind).

I'm pretty sure I always said Finestre had a decent chance of working. It was still a bit of a gamble though.

Last year mostly had a lack of variety. No descent finish, most mountain stages were different flavours of semi Unipuerto stages, etc. Sappada stood out greatly in that regard, basically guaranteeing at all out action from at least the penultimate climb without relying on monster climbs to get the job done. It's definitely a design I'd like to see more of. But it did have very good pacing, although it was light on the TT side considering the mountains they had.

Now I think the risk of nothing happening in the first 11 road stages and no chances to do much in the final few road stages are a little too big, although I'd like to take a closer look at the finishing profiles of the hilly stages in the first week.

 

[Salvarani]

It looks good to me.

Hope Dumo goes Giro.

 

[Pantani_lives]

7/10

Three time trials are an invitation to Dumoulin; the Giro di Lombardia final is an invitation to Pinot and Nibali. The course has potential for a great race, but I'm not entirely convinced. What I miss is a tough MTF. The tough mountains are far from the finish. This can lead to spectacular developments, but it's also possible that riders are afraid to attack and the favorites stay together. We'll have to wait and see how it works out. There are certainly chances for big attacks.

 

[May0maniac]

Re:

7/10

Three time trials are an invitation to Dumoulin; the Giro di Lombardia final is an invitation to Pinot and Nibali. The course has potential for a great race, but I'm not entirely convinced. What I miss is a tough MTF. The tough mountains are far from the finish. This can lead to spectacular developments, but it's also possible that riders are afraid to attack and the favorites stay together. We'll have to wait and see how it works out. There are certainly chances for big attacks.

The Nivolet stage is a hard MTF, but another one in the first week wouldn' be bad.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re: Re:

Sorry, what is your complaint regarding this year and the reference to Montalcino 2010? I don't quite see?

The point is that you'll very rarely see much action in poorly designed stage, no matter what. The logic about "it's the riders that makes the race" is true, but that requires that there is actually terrain where it's possible to attack.

A well designed stage doesn't guarantee action, but a poorly designed stage almost certainly guarantees little or no action.

A 10/10 route has to be almost perfectly designed. This route is FAR from being that. Also far from being a 9/10 route.

Thanks I picked up that a while ago. And while I agree with the notion that routes can have an impact, I'm merely suggesting that maybe we overestimate that effect sometimes. Yes, Montalcino 2010 was a nice stage. But did the organizers know with certainty that it would rain that exact day when they made the route? And did they know which riders were going to participate in the race? The answer is no. While somewhat spectacular on paper, there is still quite a gap to how good it actually turned out.

So, in my opinion, this whole discussion about great race design can, at best, be reduced to one factor that will alter the potential for action. It's only a part of the playground so to speak, and I guess, as such I am not going put too much emphasis on route design if my only criteria for route evaluation is whether it will have a significant and substantial impact on the race. Because I don't know for sure if that is the case, none of us really knows. Instead, there are simply other things to focus on when evaluating a route. That's my way of thinking.

You are welcome to try and change my mind, but it will obviously require more than a little piece of anecdotal evidence.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

7/10

Three time trials are an invitation to Dumoulin; the Giro di Lombardia final is an invitation to Pinot and Nibali. The course has potential for a great race, but I'm not entirely convinced. What I miss is a tough MTF. The tough mountains are far from the finish. This can lead to spectacular developments, but it's also possible that riders are afraid to attack and the favorites stay together. We'll have to wait and see how it works out. There are certainly chances for big attacks.

The Nivolet stage is a hard MTF, but another one in the first week wouldn' be bad.

Nivolet is hard, but it has like 4km of flat around 2 thirds of the climb they use now which will limit action so much.

It's one of those small things that have major negative consequences for the design of a stage.

 

[42x16ss]

As a few people have already pointed out, it's not perfect, but far better than the completely wasted opportunity that is the TdF parcours. The number of 200km+ stages is great. IMO the short sharp stages need to be mixed among these to work correctly and this route does that.

I'm not getting the disappointment for the first week. It's good that there's a few stages that aren't definite bunch sprints early on, without tearing the field apart completely.

What I don't like is the ITT setup, 3 short TT's, two with uphill finishes isn't necessary with those brutal 5000m+ climbing days. I'd prefer to see the second TT be a 35-45km lightly rolling TT, and I'm not sure that the final stage needs to be a TT at all.

I'd give it a 7.5, but with the TdF route I'm going to round up to 8.

 

[OlavEH]

Re: Re:

Thanks I picked up that a while ago. And while I agree with the notion that routes can have an impact, I'm merely suggesting that maybe we overestimate that effect sometimes. Yes, Montalcino 2010 was a nice stage. But did the organizers know with certainty that it would rain that exact day when they made the route? And did they know which riders were going to participate in the race? The answer is no. While somewhat spectacular on paper, there is still quite a gap to how good it actually turned out.

So, in my opinion, this whole discussion about great race design can, at best, be reduced to one factor that will alter the potential for action. It's only a part of the playground so to speak, and I guess, as such I am not going put too much emphasis on route design if my only criteria for route evaluation is whether it will have a significant and substantial impact on the race. Because I don't know for sure if that is the case, none of us really knows. Instead, there are simply other things to focus on when evaluating a route. That's my way of thinking.

You are welcome to try and change my mind, but it will obviously require more than a little piece of anecdotal evidence.

The sterrato races in Strade Bianche is almost always spectacular, no matter if it rains or not.

Could you instead list mountain stages that proved to be great entartainment even if they were poorly or average designed? You can search for threads in this forum discussing the best stages in GTs the last decade. You don't find many of those stages with one big climb as a MTF. The design does have in impact on the action in the race. And sometimes a huge impact.

 

[bassano]

I gave 7 because to be perfect, it miss some really hard stage in Appenino, San Martino And Anterselva could be better but rest of it Is really nice, like Ponte do Legno, Courmayer and Nivolet, I am looking to see IT.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

7/10

Three time trials are an invitation to Dumoulin; the Giro di Lombardia final is an invitation to Pinot and Nibali. The course has potential for a great race, but I'm not entirely convinced. What I miss is a tough MTF. The tough mountains are far from the finish. This can lead to spectacular developments, but it's also possible that riders are afraid to attack and the favorites stay together. We'll have to wait and see how it works out. There are certainly chances for big attacks.

The Nivolet stage is a hard MTF, but another one in the first week wouldn' be bad.

Nivolet is hard, but it has like 4km of flat around 2 thirds of the climb they use now which will limit action so much.

It's one of those small things that have major negative consequences for the design of a stage.

If it was in the second half of the race I'd agree, but it's the first week - someone will want to make a statement, and there's no need to destroy the field yet, not with 5000m+ days in the third week.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

Thanks I picked up that a while ago. And while I agree with the notion that routes can have an impact, I'm merely suggesting that maybe we overestimate that effect sometimes. Yes, Montalcino 2010 was a nice stage. But did the organizers know with certainty that it would rain that exact day when they made the route? And did they know which riders were going to participate in the race? The answer is no. While somewhat spectacular on paper, there is still quite a gap to how good it actually turned out.

So, in my opinion, this whole discussion about great race design can, at best, be reduced to one factor that will alter the potential for action. It's only a part of the playground so to speak, and I guess, as such I am not going put too much emphasis on route design if my only criteria for route evaluation is whether it will have a significant and substantial impact on the race. Because I don't know for sure if that is the case, none of us really knows. Instead, there are simply other things to focus on when evaluating a route. That's my way of thinking.

You are welcome to try and change my mind, but it will obviously require more than a little piece of anecdotal evidence.

The sterrato races in Strade Bianche is almost always spectacular, no matter if it rains or not.

Could you instead list mountain stages that proved to be great entartainment even if they were poorly or average designed? You can search for threads in this forum discussing the best stages in GTs the last decade. You don't find many of those stages with one big climb as a MTF. The design does have in impact on the action in the race. And sometimes a huge impact.

Fuente De 2012 springs to mind.

 

[Rollthedice]

7, could be worse could be better. The message though is clear, if you're a rider who can't climb quite well and mostly if you don't have proper endurance then look somewhere else, this Giro is not for you.

 

[tobydawq]

Re: Re:

Thanks I picked up that a while ago. And while I agree with the notion that routes can have an impact, I'm merely suggesting that maybe we overestimate that effect sometimes. Yes, Montalcino 2010 was a nice stage. But did the organizers know with certainty that it would rain that exact day when they made the route? And did they know which riders were going to participate in the race? The answer is no. While somewhat spectacular on paper, there is still quite a gap to how good it actually turned out.

So, in my opinion, this whole discussion about great race design can, at best, be reduced to one factor that will alter the potential for action. It's only a part of the playground so to speak, and I guess, as such I am not going put too much emphasis on route design if my only criteria for route evaluation is whether it will have a significant and substantial impact on the race. Because I don't know for sure if that is the case, none of us really knows. Instead, there are simply other things to focus on when evaluating a route. That's my way of thinking.

You are welcome to try and change my mind, but it will obviously require more than a little piece of anecdotal evidence.

The sterrato races in Strade Bianche is almost always spectacular, no matter if it rains or not.

Could you instead list mountain stages that proved to be great entartainment even if they were poorly or average designed? You can search for threads in this forum discussing the best stages in GTs the last decade. You don't find many of those stages with one big climb as a MTF. The design does have in impact on the action in the race. And sometimes a huge impact.

Fuente De 2012 springs to mind.

With a bit of tailwind, Mont Ventoux stages also have potential, even if they have been a bit of a let-down, cycling-wise in recent times. Valverde vs Szmyd in 2009 was pretty awesome, though.

2013 was good too, even if it was exceptionally odd.

 

[Red Rick]

Honestly I'd like to see Ventoux mid stage again. I know they did part of it in PN a few years ago or was that the stage that was completely canceled?

 

[tobydawq]

Re:

Honestly I'd like to see Ventoux mid stage again. I know they did part of it in PN a few years ago or was that the stage that was completely canceled?

No, they did go some way up. It was a Gesink vs. Evans showdown, I think Gesink won.

That was wrong - Evans won. 33 seconds to the still-going-strong duo of Nocentini and Rebellin who ended 2nd and 1st on GC.

 

[luckyboy]

The first two weeks are bizarrely bad (10-11-12 is just horrible)

From stage 13 onwards it depends on how things are raced. 13-15 looks like an interesting run (15 I like especially), though I guess they're not going to go all-out on the Courmayeur stage, which is a shame.

Gavia-Mortirolo-Apri.. uh, Ponte di Legno is good. 17 and 19 don't give a great impression, while we can just hope that people go early on Manghen/Rolle ahead of the time trial.

Also three time trials

Could be a lot better.

 

[hrotha]

I think 7/10 is fair. Plenty of things I don't like about this route (it looks very backloaded to me, although the Giro is almost always guilty of this; also, I'd rather have 2 ITTs with a longer one than 3 where the longest one is a mere 35 km), plenty of things that I think are pretty great (notably, the number of long stages and the few stages that end on an easier climb after the main course of the day).

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

Honestly I'd like to see Ventoux mid stage again. I know they did part of it in PN a few years ago or was that the stage that was completely canceled?

No, they did go some way up. It was a Gesink vs. Evans showdown, I think Gesink won.

That was wrong - Evans won. 33 seconds to the still-going-strong duo of Nocentini and Rebellin who ended 2nd and 1st on GC.

I was actually talking about 2016 when they went up to Chalet Reynard but it was earlier in the stage than I remembered. Didn't even make the broadcast.

 

[OlavEH]

I'm suprised by the excitement for the Lago di Serru stage. Does it have do to with the use of a new climb?

The climb is only tough for the last 5 km which seems to average about 9 %. Not much is going to happen before that. At best an average mountain stage in the bigger picture.

If they have to use a last big climb which pretty much means no attacks before that climb, I would preferrably want to see a climb that doesn't get steeper and steeper, and where the last 3-4-5 kms is the toughest part of the climb. Long 15-20 km climbs with constantly high gradients of 7-8-9 % would be better. Or a climb which is toughest the first half, and where the last part isn't more than 5-6 % gradient.

 

[movingtarget]

Re:

I think 7/10 is fair. Plenty of things I don't like about this route (it looks very backloaded to me, although the Giro is almost always guilty of this; also, I'd rather have 2 ITTs with a longer one than 3 where the longest one is a mere 35 km), plenty of things that I think are pretty great (notably, the number of long stages and the few stages that end on an easier climb after the main course of the day).

I agree about the TTs. TTs in general are usually irritating in that they could be much better in the planning. But I think the course is probably worth a 7. It seems the longer TT has become a thing of the past.

 

[Robert5091]

So stage 18 is basically a 30km long climb followed by a 190 km long descent?! :lol:
C'mon, this is the stage we'll all remember.

The last stage TT is a mind-blower - is it long enough to make a difference GC wise or not, so why not make it longer or ... flat, or ... AAAARGH!

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

So stage 18 is basically a 30km long climb followed by a 190 km long descent?! :lol:
C'mon, this is the stage we'll all remember.

The last stage TT is a mind-blower - is it long enough to make a difference GC wise or not, so why not make it longer or ... flat, or ... AAAARGH!

Remember this gem from 2009?

But I will admit it is the saddest visit to Cortina d'Ampezzo in a Giro

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Re: Re:

Remember this gem from 2009?

This was the first of many Lance is crying about the Giro stages that year. Because of the downhill from Passo Maloja.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

Honestly I'd like to see Ventoux mid stage again. I know they did part of it in PN a few years ago or was that the stage that was completely canceled?

Pretty sure they climbed to Chalet Reynard early on in the stage, so that doesn't do much. 2015 or 2016 or something like that.

I was probably a bit harsh with my 5,5-6 rating at first. Maybe closer to 7 than 6? I always have a hard time rating a route immediately after. I think Nibali should like this route and I hope that he goes.. it seems pretty much up in the air with a lot of guys atm, so we will just have to wait a bit.