Bavarianrider said:
If both TT were 15 km longer this woud be a really nice route.
Still better than the Tour.
I sort of agree. My initial reaction was a 6-7.
But now I am thinking it's more 7-8. Seems like a very good route.
The first 11 stages....again on first sighting don't impress all that much. But we've had Etna in week one in a couple of recent editions and the racing hasn't been that great. Maybe we don't need a MTF in week one?
Not that I agree with stages 10 and 11. Your stages after rest days are extra important, because you can make a decisive stage without worrying about whether it will impact negatively on the previous stage. So to have an ITT on stage 9 is perfect, but then a pancake flat stage 10 makes zero sense. I wouldn't mind stage 11 as it is if stage 10 was 90% better.
But the first nine stages are nice. Stage 1 will create some interesting, though not decisive gaps, then we have stage 2 which is lumpy and longish. Stage 3 is a little less lumpy, but longer. Stage 4 is a little longer again, and with a slight uphill finish. This will impact on the legs long-term, if not on the GC short-term.
Stage 5 is then pretty much a breakaway/rest day, but then stage 6 is excellent. Lumpy throughout, with the main climb starting after the riders have already ridden 200 kms. That's what is really good about this Giro. They're keeping endurance in the sport.
233 kms. This stage will hurt.
Stage 7 is not great, but not horrible, and stage 8 is good course design; a very long stage to sap the energy of the riders some more, leading into the longest ITT. There wouldn't be much point making an obvious GC stage here as it would be wasted, so I think this is decent.
Stage 12 looks to be the weirdest design of them all. If it was buried in week three then this could work, but a short stage with only one major climb with over 30 kms to go to the finish, on the back of three 'rest days'....what is the point?
What is to come doesn't encourage any GC action on stage 12 either.
But stage 13 onwards is pretty close to perfect. Stage 13's long MTF will result in a serious sorting out, and then stage 14 is perhaps the most beautiful short mountain stage design that I've ever seen (outside of the race design thread

). And stage 15 is very interesting. A super long stage with a difficult finish, but not in the high mountains. It is perfect to not deter action on the previous two days, whilst still providing some time gaps itself. Those final 70 kms will be ridden hard with the rest day ahead.
Stage 16 is as good as it gets. I'll get a Red Rick if I look at it for much longer.
The rest of the final week is very well balanced. There is no point going crazy with ever stage. Stage 17 is interesting enough, and could result in GC action, because of how tame stage 18 is. Stage 19 being pretty much just a MTF is perfect, given that long range attacks are unlikely when you see stage 20, which is a stage that you cannot hide on. In recent times we've gotten too used to the overload of mountains in the last few days. If one thinks back to the 2004 TDF (though not necessarily a great route), it had very little in the first half of the race, and then all the mountains were packed into the end of week 2 and beginning of week 3. Basically the difficulty of the mountains in this Giro by the end of stage 17 can compete with many GT's of the past, and then we still have stage 19, and especially 20, as significant stages.
And then another ITT. Another 20 kms would be really good, but still, at least there is a reasonable amount of 'truth' here.
Now I'm going an 8.