• 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 Tour de France route

Page 4 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate the route of next year's Tour?

  • 1

    Votes: 6 7.6%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • 4

    Votes: 14 17.7%
  • 5

    Votes: 9 11.4%
  • 6

    Votes: 19 24.1%
  • 7

    Votes: 11 13.9%
  • 8

    Votes: 7 8.9%
  • 9

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • 10

    Votes: 3 3.8%

  • Total voters
    79
"In order to achieve a thrilling race", ASO:
- guaranteed an advantage to the riders with the strongest backup team
- ensured no gaps until the 800m sterrato at the top of a climb that's been overused recently
- put the most selective Massif Central climb 25km into a 200km stage
- put 27km of ITT meaning climbers will have limited deficits to make up
- put the first two MTFs on climbs the riders know like the back of their hand
- put several tempo climbs as the decisive ones of stages
- avoided all of the best lead-in climbs to the MTFs they're using
- designed one (one) remotely half-ok mountain stage (Prat d'Albis).

This isn't a race design set up to create a thrilling race. It's a race design set up to not create big gaps, in the hope that something being on the line will make you think it was exciting when everybody rides in formation rather than it being settled early on.

I'm sure, just like the utter dreck that was the 2011 Tour, we'll get one or two good stages near the end seeing as somebody will have to try something at some point, and because the end was good people will forget that the rest of the race was garbage. I just hope and pray that the good stage is the Prat d'Albis or Galibier one so we can put an end to this "a short mountain stage is automatically good" fallacy once and for all and stop using it in as a crutch in lieu of providing actual good mountain stages, without paying attention to why it was that the 2011 stage worked in the first place.

And the Andy stage was a better spectacle anyway. I think everybody's being too generous to this route. 2018 had some well-designed mountain stages, but in the wrong order to get anything out of them. 2017 had a similar beginning but a much better second weekend (and deliberate misuse of Belgium, same as 2019). I'd have to study 2016's route in depth as against this as the start of that was execrable. Depending on the routes of the stages they've yet to reveal it could be the worst route since 2012, depending on the head to head against 2016. This has execrable mountaintop finishes (other than Val Thorens), terrible misplaced obstacles, as much TTT as ITT which is an instant fail, and overkill on the short stages that will take away one of the reasons they worked in the first place.
 
We will see :) .

How often have you, me, everybody been wrong?

We can slice and dice as much as we want...there's potential in this route, the proof will be in the pudding. I don't think it's fair to over-criticize. Criticizing is fine, but being overboard is weird. We may witness a great TdF, we don't know. We don't know.

But I think that I read through what ASO was trying to achieve, and again maybe I'm wrong.

I'll buy the next glass of wine, after the Tour finish :) . Cheers.
 
But I don't think I'm over-criticizing. I think this route epitomises a lot of the current problems with parcours trend, such as anæmic ITT, overuse of the TTT, over-reliance on gimmicks and "name' summits to disguise a lack of creativity or ideas, and spamming of the short mountain stage until we get to the point where we can't even compare to say long stages produce boring racing because we simply never see them anymore.

And even if we do see a great Tour, that won't erase the flaws in the route. The 2012 Vuelta route was still absolutely awful, they got a lot of things that fell into place that meant the race was a lot better than it had any right to be.

Also: La Course.
 
I can not give more then 4 to route like this, again enough long TTT to disadvantage not So strong teams, just 0,5 interesting stages in Pyrenees, Vosges Are Ok, Alps have some good stages but again very few really selective climbs, and again ridiculously short mountain stages. I hope Dumoulin will make Giro again.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
But I don't think I'm over-criticizing. I think this route epitomises a lot of the current problems with parcours trend, such as anæmic ITT, overuse of the TTT, over-reliance on gimmicks and "name' summits to disguise a lack of creativity or ideas, and spamming of the short mountain stage until we get to the point where we can't even compare to say long stages produce boring racing because we simply never see them anymore.

And even if we do see a great Tour, that won't erase the flaws in the route. The 2012 Vuelta route was still absolutely awful, they got a lot of things that fell into place that meant the race was a lot better than it had any right to be.

Also: La Course.
I don't disagree, and I feel nothing but respect for your contributions. You bring riders, stories, feats, that I bet 99% of the members don't know. Many of your posts make me feel 20, 30, and some 40 years younger. I am on the record begging ASO and the likes to hire you.

If I were a DS I see opportunities here.

And all the design talk comes down to: how a climber can ITT with the best of them, an ITT specialist becomes a goat, how do you make sense of it, and that makes designers not know what to do.
 
I don't know why we continue to separate the climbers from the TT guys, saying stuff like longer TTs will force the climbers to attack sooner. These days, the GC guys with strong TTs tend to also be the best (or among the best) climbers.

The route is fine. Not awful, not spectacular. Anyway, I don't see any point in getting too worked up over it as the riders and teams will make the race what it is.
 
Those 2 guys who have rated this a 10/10 route must be joking. Or out of their mind. 8 is also way too high. That implies that it is limited possibilities to create a better route in the future. That is NOT the case.
 
Alexandre B. said:
Red Rick said:
- Less sprints than usual in the first week
- Good stages through the Vosges
- Very nice stages through the Massive Central
- Nice ITT placement in an iconic TdF town
- Iconic summit finish on the Tourmalet
- Nice new summit finish on Prat d'Albis
- Great use of rarer climbs in the Alps, great use of altitude
- So excited to see Galibier south again after 2011
- Great finish of the race on a 30km+ climb
You're trolling, right? You must be. :p
Let's just say I wasn't very serious

1/10.

This route just exposes that ASO's philosophy on route design is just full of crap. They did their efforts to make a route as boring as possible.
 
Re: Re:

qwerty16 said:
Kwibus said:
qwerty16 said:
Pantani_lives said:
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.

I agree with the 8/10. People who give this a very low rating are either delusional or biased against the Tour de France, or both.

Thats too easy. Just 28km itt gives plenty of reason to give a lower rating. A ttt is beautiful and awesome, but in a GT its very unpopulair for obvious reasons.

I could say its delusional and biased in favour of the TdF to give this route an 8.

I give this route an 6. I dont think its pretty good, but lacks itt miles.

The comments about the low number of itt km's are justifiable, although that's just personal. Sure, the numbers nowadays are really low. But that isn't a reason for handing out 1's and 3's for the route.

Why isn't that a reason for giving this route a bad mark? I think it very much is. Sufficient ITT kms are an integral part of any proper GT.
 
Re: Re:

OlavEH said:
Pantani_lives said:
Descender said:
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.
Then which climbs in France should they use? It doesn't get much harder than Tourmalet, Izoard, Galibier and Iséran.

Really, you think it's about using toughest possible single climbs?

For example, I consider a 145 km km stage from St.Girons to Pla d'Adet via Portet d'Aspet, Mente, Portillon, Peyresourde and Azet as much more interesting stage than the 207 km stage to Valloire next year. Or if we use the Alps, a less than 150 km stage from Albertville to Morzine via Saises, Aravis, Colombiere and Joux-Plane.

I could also give you several other examples of short stages with no Galibier, Iseran or Tourmalet which still would be much more interesting stages. A stage to Tignes via Iseran would also be much better if it was somewhat longer and included for example Mont Cenis first.

Not to mention forgotten areas like the French Basque Country. It seems like the Pyrenees mean only 6-7 climbs around the two Bagneres for the Tour.
 
Re:

jaylew said:
I don't know why we continue to separate the climbers from the TT guys, saying stuff like longer TTs will force the climbers to attack sooner. These days, the GC guys with strong TTs tend to also be the best (or among the best) climbers.
ITTs also separate the climbers from the other climbers. It's not just about forcing the 2nd or 3rd strongest guys to attack, it's also about everyone else having to move sooner (or become irrelevant to the race), and that creating a domino effect.
 
Re:

jaylew said:
I don't know why we continue to separate the climbers from the TT guys, saying stuff like longer TTs will force the climbers to attack sooner. These days, the GC guys with strong TTs tend to also be the best (or among the best) climbers.

The route is fine. Not awful, not spectacular. Anyway, I don't see any point in getting too worked up over it as the riders and teams will make the race what it is.

One team will make the race as it is perfectly designed for them, Sky.
 
Re: Re:

Rollthedice said:
jaylew said:
I don't know why we continue to separate the climbers from the TT guys, saying stuff like longer TTs will force the climbers to attack sooner. These days, the GC guys with strong TTs tend to also be the best (or among the best) climbers.

The route is fine. Not awful, not spectacular. Anyway, I don't see any point in getting too worked up over it as the riders and teams will make the race what it is.

One team will make the race as it is perfectly designed for them, Sky.
Any route is perfectly designed for Team Sky.
 
Re: Re:

Descender said:
jaylew said:
Anyway, I don't see any point in getting too worked up over it as the riders and teams will make the race what it is.

Well then, let's just do 21 120km flat stages then. After all, it's the riders that make the race.
Really? :rolleyes: I can't believe I even have to say this as it should be obvious to anyone with half a brain but of course I mean within the bounds of something "reasonable", not an extreme outlier of a course like your suggestion would obviously be.
Red Rick said:
Riders making the race is something you only talk about when a route is bad.
That is not a true statement. And to be fair, I mentioned the riders and teams.
 
Re: Re:

hrotha said:
jaylew said:
I don't know why we continue to separate the climbers from the TT guys, saying stuff like longer TTs will force the climbers to attack sooner. These days, the GC guys with strong TTs tend to also be the best (or among the best) climbers.
ITTs also separate the climbers from the other climbers. It's not just about forcing the 2nd or 3rd strongest guys to attack, it's also about everyone else having to move sooner (or become irrelevant to the race), and that creating a domino effect.
Sorry, I just don't believe that giving the likes of Dumo, Froome, Thomas and Roglic an additional 3-4 minute buffer would be good for the race.
 
Re: Re:

jaylew said:
hrotha said:
jaylew said:
I don't know why we continue to separate the climbers from the TT guys, saying stuff like longer TTs will force the climbers to attack sooner. These days, the GC guys with strong TTs tend to also be the best (or among the best) climbers.
ITTs also separate the climbers from the other climbers. It's not just about forcing the 2nd or 3rd strongest guys to attack, it's also about everyone else having to move sooner (or become irrelevant to the race), and that creating a domino effect.
Sorry, I just don't believe that giving the likes of Dumo, Froome, Thomas and Roglic an additional 3-4 minute buffer would be good for the race.
If Fuente is within 30 seconds of Merckx, the entire final week of the 1974 Giro never happens. If Indurain isn't so far ahead that he desperately needs minutes, not seconds, Chiapucci waits until the final climb. If he doesn't bonk and lose ten minutes the day before, Floyd attacks on Joux-Plane. If Froome is 20 seconds from Yates, he's in virtual maglia rosa when Yates bonks, and can shepherd everybody else rather than launching a solo. That does, however, come with the risk that the gaps become too large if the best time triallists are also among the strongest climbers, but then again if somebody is among the best time triallists and the best climbers they'd probably be up at the forefront anyway.

The bigger the time gaps, the more distance is required to make them up. Seeing as the stifling train technique has made it so that there are few time gaps in the road stages, the ITT is the other way to create significant enough gaps to make attacking from distance a necessity. Because as we've seen in other races, admittedly without their A team, Sky can get tired and lose their control, such as at Catalunya and in the Vuelta with Froome being dropped early. There's always the chance that a guy like Thomas crashes - he has a history of that, and then all it takes is one more accident or an ill-timed puncture to mean they're in the wrong place when there's a split, and suddenly racing is on. It may not succeed, but it would mean teams have to get creative. What we would then need, admittedly, is a stage or two like the infamous long Tirreno-Adriatico stage Sagan won from Nibali a few years ago, which is harder for the Tour to do but something similar could be done - you know, the kind of stage that's a bit harder to control because its sawtoothed nature makes it less difficult to just ride tempo through because rhythm is disrupted.

But, this course doesn't really offer much opportunity for something like that.

Like I said before, it's like ASO have looked at the problem and come up with a solution that doesn't so much improve the situation as make it look less bad by making everything else worse to meet it. ASO probably think the 2012 Giro was a phenomenal race because of how close it was.

Problem: "Providing bland mountain stages on very controllable mountains is not opening up big gaps, because the race is too controlled. This means the time trial is disproportionately important to the GC"
Reasonable solution: "Provide less bland mountain stages, and fewer tempo grinding mountains, and more potentially decisive mountains mid-stage, increasing potential time gain/loss to balance the TT mileage".
Solution, if you're ASO: "provide less time trial mileage, so that the time gaps in the TT are just as small as those in the mountains. If the race is close, surely it must be exciting".
Solution, if you're Unipublic: "do more of the small-gap mountain stages until the total sum of those small gaps balances the TT. Then shorten the TT for good measure".
 
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
tobydawq said:
So, there's also an asterisk to Froome in 2015?
Ofcourse.

Everyone knows Quintana would've taken the extra 1'30 or whatever it was back in an extra 50km of ITT.

Froome was slower than Nibali, Pinot, Urán and many others in the only TT. He was only 39th. Perhaps if there had been three billion TT miles, Nibali would have regained the lost time in the mountains.
 

Latest posts