• The Cycling News forum is still looking to add volunteer moderators with. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Rate the 2019 Giro d'Italia Route!

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Rate the 2019 Giro Route

  • 10

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 9

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • 8

    Votes: 17 28.3%
  • 7

    Votes: 23 38.3%
  • 6

    Votes: 6 10.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • 4

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    60
The 'one climb showdown' kind of stage can be very good IMO and shouldn't be criticized too much as long as we dont see anymore than one, max two of them. Problem has been there have been way too many of those or very close to unipuerto, thats never really good. it also requires that the climb has a reasonable length and toughness. We have seen some truly excellent showdowns on Pierre Saint Martin in 2015( which is about as 'easy' of a climb where you can expect good racing on such a stage) and Blockhaus in 2017. Ventoux 2013 was also good IMO. It has its place, just as a flat and uneventful sprinter stage does, a puncher-finish, a maratona, and dare I say, a TTT!
 
I wondered too how the weather might make things interesting -
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/mat...e-bloody-tough-days-at-the-2019-giro-ditalia/
"The thing that makes the Giro somewhat unpredictable is the weather. It could be 30C and sunny one day, and snowing the next.

"We've had Giros in the last couple of years that haven't had a drop of rain for three weeks," White said, "and others where we've seen stages cancelled due to snow.

"You're always in the hands of the gods with the weather in that part of the world at that time of year."
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
The 'one climb showdown' kind of stage can be very good IMO and shouldn't be criticized too much as long as we dont see anymore than one, max two of them. Problem has been there have been way too many of those or very close to unipuerto, thats never really good. it also requires that the climb has a reasonable length and toughness. We have seen some truly excellent showdowns on Pierre Saint Martin in 2015( which is about as 'easy' of a climb where you can expect good racing on such a stage) and Blockhaus in 2017. Ventoux 2013 was also good IMO. It has its place, just as a flat and uneventful sprinter stage does, a puncher-finish, a maratona, and dare I say, a TTT!
Mountain stages that come down to the last mountain stage will probably always be the bread and butter of GC racing. But these stages themselves come in many different flavours.

Stages like Ax Bonascre in the 2013 Tour are basically the perfect example of a good mountain stage that will always be decided on the final climb with a fairly limited amount of climbing before it. For me the other end of the extreme is a stage like Gran Sasso this year, which is pretty tough all the way through without ever being in doubt it will come down to the last 2km or so.

Last 2 years it seems that the medium mountains stages are kinda leaning more and more toward stages with a short, sharp hill toward the end. And those stages are fine, but medium mountain stages are very dependent on how close the best climbs of the day are to the finish and how steep they are, so they're kinda small things that make a pretty big difference.
 
I have to say like the course. There are a few flaws, of course, but the variation of stages is a fresh breath of air in this trend of having shorter (mountain) stages that come down to the last 5km or so.

The negative points for me:
- There could (should?) have been a proper strade bianche type stage in the first week, they deliver more often than not
- I'm fine with a hilly itt as first and last stage, but the San Marino tt should have been a little less hilly. There's already enough stages where the climbers can gain time.
- The Pinerolo stage could have done with an extra climb in the final
- Stage 19 could have used another climb. Passo del Brocon? It's not the hardest one, but enough to soften up the legs. Or Cima Campo from stage 20+Brocon?
- Stage 20 should have been a short non-mtf mountain stage. The current course could work, but I don't think anything wil happen before the final climb.

On the plus side:
+ I like the variation of stages in the first week. None of them will have a big influence of the final GC, but it's not like having 6 pan flat stages, a prologue, tt and itt. On the other hand, they seem to be designed with Sagan in their mind.
+ a decent amount of itt
+++ the succession of stages 13-17. I can even include stage 18, as having a flat stage then will mean the protagonists don't have to hold back on stages 16 and to a lesser extent 17.
+ two important mountain stages that don't end with a mtf
+ only one stage with a massive mtf

I want to give a 7.5/10, but that's not possible. 8 would be abit too much, so I have to settle with 7.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
The 'one climb showdown' kind of stage can be very good IMO and shouldn't be criticized too much as long as we dont see anymore than one, max two of them. Problem has been there have been way too many of those or very close to unipuerto, thats never really good. it also requires that the climb has a reasonable length and toughness. We have seen some truly excellent showdowns on Pierre Saint Martin in 2015( which is about as 'easy' of a climb where you can expect good racing on such a stage) and Blockhaus in 2017. Ventoux 2013 was also good IMO. It has its place, just as a flat and uneventful sprinter stage does, a puncher-finish, a maratona, and dare I say, a TTT!

What is fairly certain that if you have 5-6 high mountain stages in a Grand Tour, it's more or less unavoidable that there is at least of couple of these are "one climb" stages. It's doesn't have to be only one big climb, but the stage is designed in a way making the last climb "all important".

Giro is the best of the Grand Tours in that regard. Vuelta is by far the worst. It's almost as if they intentionally try to creat a bad route. And even the Giro could do better. There have been to many medium/bad climbs like Oropa, Pratonevoso, Piancavallo the last few years.

The common aspect about the climbs you mention is that they are very hard. Ventoux and Blockhaus are just brutal, and Pierre-Saint-Martin (from Arette) is by far toughest the first half. Climbs I would like to see in the Giro in these kind of stages could be for example Alpe di Siusi (from Ponte Gardena), Merano 2000, Montecampione and Monte Bondone from Trento.
 
I just took a look at the final mountain stage again, and I only realise now that they finish like 10km from where they start, so they have every option available within the area.

The final climb they use is definitely weak sauce

CroceDAuneW.gif


Now on the profile of the stage they're going some 200m higher at a similar gradient as the final few kms of the profile, so it's a little better, but they're definitely climbing the weaker side of Croce d'Aune.

But really they have so many better options than Manghen far from the finish.

Monte Grappa is so close, and it makes me sad.

The last 3 road stages can have the same start and finish places and they could be so much better :( . Then you can add 15km to the San Marino TT and all in life would be good
 
Extremely backloaded. I am not sure if some very hard stages on the last week make up for 2 weeks of boredom. There are few bumps in the first 2 weeks that can make it interesting. But I still think those first 12 days look too weak.
 
Gave it a 7.

+
Some very long stages.
Decent amount of TT kms.
Gavia & Mortirolo for a real tappone.
GdL lite.
The Abruzzo stage finishing in L'Aquila.
Correct use of short mountain stages.

-
Too much climbing in the TTs.
Cuneo Pinerolo.
The last few stages could be a letdown depending on GC standings.
Stage 10/11 combo is pathetic.

I don't mind the first week. There will be action, although probably not GC relevant but it's better than last year overkill with 3 stupid MTF in the first 10 days.
Fingers crossed for Manghen and the Dolomites in general, the weather has been brutal up there in the last few days.

Overall I like the route. It's not 2013 or 2015, but it's still solid.
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
Cance > TheRest said:
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.

Allthough im no fan of flat with a mtf at the end there are some examples where the race exploded on that final mtf.
From memory: Blockhaus and PSM.

Still id much rather see less mountains, but more heavy multi mountain stages.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
The 'one climb showdown' kind of stage can be very good IMO and shouldn't be criticized too much as long as we dont see anymore than one, max two of them. Problem has been there have been way too many of those or very close to unipuerto, thats never really good. it also requires that the climb has a reasonable length and toughness. We have seen some truly excellent showdowns on Pierre Saint Martin in 2015( which is about as 'easy' of a climb where you can expect good racing on such a stage) and Blockhaus in 2017. Ventoux 2013 was also good IMO. It has its place, just as a flat and uneventful sprinter stage does, a puncher-finish, a maratona, and dare I say, a TTT!

This post is a lot better than mine :)
 
Yeah I prefer to have a limited amount of high mountain stages, probably 6/7 max, but most of all I just prefer if they make sure that all high mountain stages are significant for the GC.

Just as importantly, you can use the medium mountains to make GC relevant stages quite easily without making the overall toughness in the race that much harder by putting the right climbs in the right places. These are things that the Giro did tremendously well in 2015 and to a lesser extent 2015.

You could argue that 2016 only had 3 big high mountain stages and it worked perfectly fine cause many of the medium mountain stages had enough to work with. Dutch stages were obviously a shame, but then the 4 first road stages in Italy had 3 GC relevant stages while the race had a limited amount of climbing in the first 9 stages.

Not all GTs can be like the 2015 Giro, but they don't need to be, cause the medium mountains in week 1 don't really need to be the up and down roller coasters as long as there's enough climbing to work with in the last 15/20km.
 
The crucial mountain stages look sexy. Should be a good action if the riders feel adventurous. Backloaded probably to lure riders into trying the double again. Would be fun if Froome, Nibali and Thomas all participated. looks like Dumoulin and Bardet will be set on TdF
 
damian13ster said:
The crucial mountain stages look sexy. Should be a good action if the riders feel adventurous. Backloaded probably to lure riders into trying the double again. Would be fun if Froome, Nibali and Thomas all participated. looks like Dumoulin and Bardet will be set on TdF
I think Yates and Mas already said they'd ride, which is good stuff. Especially Yates riding is good, which means we have one top climber in who's gonna want to be all out aggressive.
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Yeah I prefer to have a limited amount of high mountain stages, probably 6/7 max, but most of all I just prefer if they make sure that all high mountain stages are significant for the GC.

Just as importantly, you can use the medium mountains to make GC relevant stages quite easily without making the overall toughness in the race that much harder by putting the right climbs in the right places. These are things that the Giro did tremendously well in 2015 and to a lesser extent 2015.

You could argue that 2016 only had 3 big high mountain stages and it worked perfectly fine cause many of the medium mountain stages had enough to work with. Dutch stages were obviously a shame, but then the 4 first road stages in Italy had 3 GC relevant stages while the race had a limited amount of climbing in the first 9 stages.

Not all GTs can be like the 2015 Giro, but they don't need to be, cause the medium mountains in week 1 don't really need to be the up and down roller coasters as long as there's enough climbing to work with in the last 15/20km.

Will you make up your mind regarding the bolded part? ;)
 
Re:

tobydawq said:
Red Rick said:
Yeah I prefer to have a limited amount of high mountain stages, probably 6/7 max, but most of all I just prefer if they make sure that all high mountain stages are significant for the GC.

Just as importantly, you can use the medium mountains to make GC relevant stages quite easily without making the overall toughness in the race that much harder by putting the right climbs in the right places. These are things that the Giro did tremendously well in 2015 and to a lesser extent 2015.

You could argue that 2016 only had 3 big high mountain stages and it worked perfectly fine cause many of the medium mountain stages had enough to work with. Dutch stages were obviously a shame, but then the 4 first road stages in Italy had 3 GC relevant stages while the race had a limited amount of climbing in the first 9 stages.

Not all GTs can be like the 2015 Giro, but they don't need to be, cause the medium mountains in week 1 don't really need to be the up and down roller coasters as long as there's enough climbing to work with in the last 15/20km.

Will you make up your mind regarding the bolded part? ;)
I clearly need more coffee
Valv.Piti said:
2015 was great, 2016 to a lesser extent I think.
Yes, I meant this.
 
Re:

Valv.Piti said:
2015 was great, 2016 to a lesser extent I think.
2015 and 2016 were basically the exact opposite. 15 had two great weeks because of lots of entertaining medium mountain stages 16 started horribly and only from stage 14 onwards the race actually became good. Also of those four really good stages in 16 (stages 14, 16, 19, 20) all definitely were mountain and not just medium mountain stages. Stage 16 might have looked like a medium mountain stage because it had no first category climb but on the tdf scale both 2nd cat climbs of the day wouldn't be that far off being HC climbs.
 
Re: Re:

Gigs_98 said:
Valv.Piti said:
2015 was great, 2016 to a lesser extent I think.
2015 and 2016 were basically the exact opposite. 15 had two great weeks because of lots of entertaining medium mountain stages 16 started horribly and only from stage 14 onwards the race actually became good. Also of those four really good stages in 16 (stages 14, 16, 19, 20) all definitely were mountain and not just medium mountain stages. Stage 16 might have looked like a medium mountain stage because it had no first category climb but on the tdf scale both 2nd cat climbs of the day wouldn't be that far off being HC climbs.
Yeah the Tour would do Tour things and be ridiculous. It's the kind of stage that depends 100% on there not being dominant teams that want passive racing though.

First week had pretty decent stages in 2016 though. Praia a Mare, Roccasaro and Arezzo were all pretty decent stages althoug gaps were either small or non existent.
 
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 :D ). 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.
 
The fact that earlier mountain finishes haven't done much lately doesn't mean they shouldn't be there. If probably just means they're the wrong climbs at that moment. Now the Giro was in Sicily early on, so there's not that much there in MTFs.
 
gregrowlerson said:
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?

Save for the ITT, there is at maximum one stage in the first 11 stages where we could see some GC action. There may be some stages that is lumpy enough to avoid a mass sprint, but only in stage 6 could we expect attacks from GC contenders. This is really not enough.

The route consists of 2 excellent mountain stages, 1 very good hilly stage (Como) and 1-2 average/good mountain stages. The rest of the route is just bad. We lack at least two GC stages in the first 11 days, and 1 or 2 of the stages the last 10 days should have been re-designed. I gave it a 7 at first, but are now leaning more towards a 6.
 

Latest posts