Rate the 2019 Tour de France route

[railxmig]

+ Val Thorens with a harder bottom on D96 and a higher finish than i've expected. I'm not sure, where they want to finish though if it's above 2360m,

https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1055359814245797888

THX. I thought that was a dirt road but maybe the satelite image deceives me.

 

[glassmoon]

meh
5

 

[Breh]

When was the last proper flat ITT?

 

[Robert5091]

Well, the 65 km long stage I envisioned got streached out to 130 km - bravo!

(my circadian rhythms and the couch will take a real pounding with those 200 km plus stages - note to self - order coffee in bulk during TdF!)

Altitude tents will be in short supply probably before TdF - so book now!

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re:

When was the last proper flat ITT?

2012. Wiggo.

 

[tobydawq]

All you with your "proper ITT" comments really should stop living in such a fantasy world where a 50 km TT wouldn't make the rest of the race meaningless. Of course with Dumoulin and Roglic this may be slightly less the case now than in the recent past but it's not exactly as if you're only saying these things now.

 

[guncha]

It is impossible to give concrete evaluation because there are no details about uphill (??) finish in Épernay and final climbs of Colmar, Saint-Étienne and Brioude stages. However, GC action is not very likely in any of these stages.

- Saint-Étienne stage looks tragic because last 50km are wasted opportunity (have no decent climbs). Was it so difficult to put Croix de Chaubouret via Saint-Chamond before descending to finish?
- It seems that the only decent climb of Brioude stage is 35km AFTER start... Massif Central is very big disappointment.
- Hate the sequence of Pyrenees stages. Stage with decent should not be put before ITT and Tourmalet.
- Hate sequence of Alpine stages for the same reasons. It seems they want more Grand Bornard type stages...
- 27km of ITT is joke.
- None of stages have more than three 1st. cat+ climbs.
- 250km transfer from Tourmalet to Limoux looks atrocious.

+ La Planche des Belles Filles finally looks like decent 1st cat. climb.
+ Love that they will have three 2100m+ altitude finishes.
+ Val Thorens looks like beast.
+ Love the return of Iseran.
+ Like the idea of mid-Tour ITT.
+ Like that there are no more than two sprint stages in a row.
+ Uphill finish near Foix is probably the most interesting stage of the Tour.

 

[tobydawq]

@Netserk

That wasn't the point. These days, for some reason, the riders haven't really been capable of distancing each other in the mountains, making the ITT comparatively much more important than earlier. Also, a long ITT in 2013 and 2015 surely would have made everything even more boring given the fact that the strongest climber was almost also the strongest time trialist in the world.

And for those wondering, I am responding to a tweet that was a response to my post but I don't like the 280 character limit.

 

[Squire]

Re: Re:

Not too bad, actually. Lacking a decent-length TT and one or two proper 200km+ mountain grinders, but all in all a decent route by Tour standards. I always prefer a prologue as the opener, but starting with a road stage isn't a major drawback.

Descent by Tour standards? What, except from less pure sprinters stages and reasonably good Vosges and Massif Central stages, makes this a better route than normal?

Some medium mountain stages with potential for something to actually happen (and if not, then good breakaway fights) and less sprint stages as you say. And also there's not a ton of flat between every mountain, which is often the case in the Tour. I like the long grind up to Val Thorens as the last stage (it could be strangled by Sky, or we could have 30km of all-out uphill war).

And remember that 'decent by Tour standards' doesn't make it a great GT route.

 

[Juan Pelota]

I hate the death of the time trial in the Tour.

I do like 5 MTF though.

 

[tobydawq]

Re:

@Netserk

That wasn't the point. These days, for some reason, the riders haven't really been capable of distancing each other in the mountains, making the ITT comparatively much more important than earlier. Also, a long ITT in 2013 and 2015 surely would have made everything even more boring given the fact that the strongest climber was almost also the strongest time trialist in the world.

I actually said that this year it might not be the case any more after the emergence of Dumoulin, Roglic and also of course Thomas on the GT winner potential list. Now it would make sense. It wouldn't have made sense to put long ITTs in the Tour in many of the latest editions, yet people were still complaining when they didn't.

And why not just get in here instead of this parallel universe communication?

 

[gregrowlerson]

Re:

They've really tried to balance it, I feel.
I like the altitudes, but it kind of killed the length of closing Alpine stages, just like the second week's complexion choked Tourmalet's stage length. Nevertheless, reasonable decisions.
Very appealing route.

Generally agree. I voted a 6.

For those complaining about a descent finish for stage 18 before two MTF's, I think it's okay, as stage 18 is harder (much longer) and the finish isn't long after the Galibier, so should still be a great stage IMO.

PDBF is getting over used, but at least it gives some guaranteed sorting out during week 1.

However, there should be a long flattish ITT in the Tour. If you cannot time trial then that's your problem, and you can always go to the Vuelta.

 

[Pantani_lives]

8/10
My impression is that reactions will be negative whatever they come up with. This is a classic course with tough mountain stages and not much time trialling. Time trialists will be disappointed that there isn't a second ITT in the final weekend, but I want the Tour to be decided by attacks in the mountains, and this course creates the opportunity, so I'm happy.

The first week is mostly warm-up. Short TTT won't be very important. Planche dBF is becoming cliché, but it's better than a flat stage. Some more middle mountains mostly interesting for stage hunters or early yellow.

Three Pyrenees stages. The first won't be interesting. Finish on Tourmalet is an excellent opportunity for climbers to attack. No excuses here. The best climbers will prevail. Not sure about the third stage; the best GC riders might stay together, or an attacker might be rewarded.

The Alpine stages are great. The three giants Izoard, Galibier and Iséran are all there. I really hope there's a climber with good legs who can destroy the field.

 

[Kwibus]

Re:

8/10
My impression is that reactions will be negative whatever they come up with. This is a classic course with tough mountain stages and not much time trialling. Time trialists will be disappointed that there isn't a second ITT in the final weekend, but I want the Tour to be decided by attacks in the mountains, and this course creates the opportunity, so I'm happy.

The first week is mostly warm-up. Short TTT won't be very important. Planche dBF is becoming cliché, but it's better than a flat stage. Some more middle mountains mostly interesting for stage hunters or early yellow.

Three Pyrenees stages. The first won't be interesting. Finish on Tourmalet is an excellent opportunity for climbers to attack. No excuses here. The best climbers will prevail. Not sure about the third stage; the best GC riders might stay together, but an attacker might be rewarded.

The Alpine stages are great. The three giants Izoard, Galibier and Iséran are all there. I really hope there's a climber with good legs who can destroy the field.

TT forces climbers to attack in the mountains doesnt it?

If 1 TT then make it atleast 50km or something. Besides that I think it looks pretty good. I dont have the details yet though so maybe Ill change my opinion.

 

[Pantani_lives]

Re: Re:

8/10
My impression is that reactions will be negative whatever they come up with. This is a classic course with tough mountain stages and not much time trialling. Time trialists will be disappointed that there isn't a second ITT in the final weekend, but I want the Tour to be decided by attacks in the mountains, and this course creates the opportunity, so I'm happy.

The first week is mostly warm-up. Short TTT won't be very important. Planche dBF is becoming cliché, but it's better than a flat stage. Some more middle mountains mostly interesting for stage hunters or early yellow.

Three Pyrenees stages. The first won't be interesting. Finish on Tourmalet is an excellent opportunity for climbers to attack. No excuses here. The best climbers will prevail. Not sure about the third stage; the best GC riders might stay together, but an attacker might be rewarded.

The Alpine stages are great. The three giants Izoard, Galibier and Iséran are all there. I really hope there's a climber with good legs who can destroy the field.

TT forces climbers to attack in the mountains doesnt it?

If 1 TT then make it atleast 50km or something. Besides that I think it looks pretty good. I dont have the details yet though so maybe Ill change my opinion.

In theory yes, but if a climber is too far behind he might also just continue riding for a podium place, or even lose the leadership in his team. I would really like to see an individual climber take yellow. Apart from Aru for one day it's too long ago that has happened.

 

[Descender]

Re: Re:

They've really tried to balance it, I feel.

How? Balance it in regards to what?

They balanced mediocrity with monotony.

 

[Gigs_98]

Does anyone know how they'll approach Gap? There is no profile for the stage so are they gonna make it one for the sprinters?

 

[Kwibus]

Does anyone know how they'll approach Gap? There is no profile for the stage so are they gonna make it one for the sprinters?

No hilly final Ive heard. Descent finish, no manse though.

 

[Descender]

I guess those of you who like this route are looking forward to the most boring Sky train in history. Every mountain stage seems like it was designed by Sky themselves: long climbs of moderate steepness, wide roads, easy to control on the descents.

 

[hrotha]

It's bullcrap to suggest people would complain no matter what the route was. Some relatively recent Giro routes got lots of praise. There's been a lot of discussion about what makes a good route especially in the last decade. We know what we want. We're asking for concrete things that everybody would readily recognize if ASO implemented them, we're not complaining for the sake of it.

 

[Bavarianrider]

What a motherfucking Piece of ***,

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re:

Does anyone know how they'll approach Gap? There is no profile for the stage so are they gonna make it one for the sprinters?

No, it's a breakaway stage with Col de la Sentinelle at the end, followed by a short descent finish.

https://www.letour.fr/en/stage-17

https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1055434685411672064

https://twitter.com/laflammerouge16/status/1055428452202041344

 

[Valv.Piti]

The alps are high altitude, that's something. Another reason Bala shouldn't ride. I like that, but otherwise they are pretty poorly designed IMO. Its a bunch of meh, as are the Pyrenees, but I like the Alps better still. I like the stages in the Vosges and Massif Central, they are all nice.

 

[railxmig]

Re:

I guess those of you who like this route are looking forward to the most boring Sky train in history. Every mountain stage seems like it was designed by Sky themselves: long climbs of moderate steepness, wide roads, easy to control on the descents.

Judging by the profile they'll be descending Col du Tra, which is sort of comparable with that unused Mollard side, but steeper. Sadly, it's just before the long and irregular behemoth of Val Thorens but if it's wet it can have a high risk of crashes. However, if it will work out then maybe in next years if Maurienne or La Toussuire will be interested then Mollard might be descended via the milder and more technical side. Also the descent from Galibier is not that easy (last 10k are though) and i expect some movement in the last 1k of the climb. And as for Sky... i don't think they really care if it's steep or not.

 

[Cance > TheRest]

Re:

8/10
My impression is that reactions will be negative whatever they come up with. This is a classic course with tough mountain stages and not much time trialling. Time trialists will be disappointed that there isn't a second ITT in the final weekend, but I want the Tour to be decided by attacks in the mountains, and this course creates the opportunity, so I'm happy.

I wouldn't say that. Overall, there will always be a lot of negative reactions in threads like these, simply because of the negativity bias involved in more people jumping to the keyboard and venting their frustrations than praising the good aspects.

Ofcourse if there's a pattern of the same groups of people complaining over route after route, no matter the characteristics of the route, then you may be right. But I haven't noticed that.