Tour de France Rate the 2022 Tour de France route

Rate the TDF route

  • 1

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • 4

    Votes: 8 8.5%
  • 5

    Votes: 21 22.3%
  • 6

    Votes: 15 16.0%
  • 7

    Votes: 22 23.4%
  • 8

    Votes: 11 11.7%
  • 9

    Votes: 4 4.3%
  • 10

    Votes: 6 6.4%

  • Total voters
    94
I'm torn between 5 or 6 of 10, but end up in 5 . It's just too lame to rate it higher.

+++ Granon and the Aubisque-Spandelles-Hautacam combo
++ Few sprint finishes. That's always a plus
+Stage 6 and partly 8 and 9 have okay finishes
+Cobbled stage, although this is also a risk

--- A complete lack of stages designed for attack further out than a few kms from the stage finish.
-- The sequence of the mountain stages are just plain wrong, especially in the Pyrenees.
-- The high mountain stages are just too short. Coudn't they cough up at lest one or two over 200 km.
-- The Megeve stage is just a complete waste.
-- Again PDBF, Alpe and Peyragudes. I can understand using Alpe d'Huez once every 3 or 4 years, but not the two other.
-And again a lack of long and tough medium mountain stages.
-Not many chances for good breakways.
 
Last edited:
4/10. Closer to a 3 than to a 5, it really isn't good at all.

Positives:
  • Variation, almost every rider type will have an opportunity for a stage win.
  • Relatively few straightforward sprint stages, especially if the wind cooperates
  • Right amount of TT for this route
  • Stages 5 and 6 should produce some solid action ahead of the mountains
Negatives:
  • The stage lengths are abysmally low. The five hardest stages have an average length below 150 km.
  • Not a single stage designed for action before the MTF
  • Despite this, there may only be five GC-relevant mountain stages plus Mende, as I doubt Châtel, Mégève and Foix will produce much in the way of GC racing.
  • Two of those five are all about the garage ramp at the end
  • No mountains before the final 7 kilometres of stage 7 means there's a strong risk of half the GC field being destroyed by crashes again
  • No mid-mountain stages
  • Little emphasis on descending
  • A complete lack of innovation, both in terms of the climbs used and the types of stages
  • Poor pacing, lacking hard stages in the weekend and any understanding of how to order mountain stages
The same mistakes being repeated year after year is so disappointing, especially when good things like this year's Le Creusot stage aren't. This is the marquee event of the sport, the one that should be setting standards and bringing in new fans more than any other race on the calendar. These routes are a detriment to the Tour's ability to fulfill either role and I'm judging accordingly.
 
5 for me. Cobbles is great and the medium stages as well. But the main problem continues to be the same. The length of the mountain stages. That is the most important thing at the Tour. Couldn't at least try to put one 200+ in the Alpes and one 200+ in the Pyrenees? Isn't that too much to ask for???
 
Reactions: Andy262
I gave it a 6.

I like the return of the cobbles and the first week is really nice with some hilly stages and even the flat stages can be interesting due to the possibility of wind blowing. Less flat stages than this year is a plus too. A 40km TT with some climbs is also welcome after the boring final TT from this year. Alpe d'Huez and Hautacam stages are quite good and Col du Granon is a great addition to the race, a kind of climb rarely seen in the Tour, which brings me to the things that I dislike...

There is barely a new climb in the race. La Planche, Peygaroudes and even Mende are too much used and there is not a long mountain stage to properly test the endurance of the riders. The insistence in climbing finishes also annoys me, I know that descent finishes have been criticised lately but the most important stages in the race last year was actually a descent finish and having 9 or 10 uphill finishes will only make the race more boring as the riders will wait for the final kilometers to attack. Its almost as if they want things to be decided in the final TT like in 2020.

Speaking about riders, I think Jumbo should really happy, Roglić has a route with lots of uphill finishes as he likes and Van Aert will have several stages to win points for the green jersey and not so many to lose them. Pogačar should also be happy with the route but I think he would have prefered longer mountain stages but if the first stages are raced really hard as this year he could delivered a sig and Bernal would have prefered less TT kilometers but its not a bad route for him either. I would keep an eye on Colbrelli too for the green jerseyand maybe even Van der Poel has a if he commits to it
 
If everyone among the big names is fit, on form, not injured & their team is at full strength, I imagine this Tour could be like the Flanders WC road race last month: the route was criticized upside down, inside out & every which way imaginable before the race... yet the race itself was totally legendary (or at least really exciting whereas people had predicted a bore fest with a large sprint finish).

It's an old cliché to say "it's the riders who make the race", but when we look at the names on the projected startlist in next year's Tour... it could be fun. Especially on this route (just like in the recent Vuelta, i.e. for example who could have predicted the Covadonga stage would be so exciting?).

So I'll give this route a placeholding 8 because it gives the best riders in the world enough to play with to give us some serious spectacle (& a sh*t Tour for me is one with very few mountain top finishes & way too many sprints, whereas this Tour has loads of MTF's & has kept the number of sprint stages under control).
 
Oct 25, 2020
34
29
630
I gave it a 9.
Delighted to see the Col du Granon back after decades in the shadows. A true monster of a climb.
I enjoy watching the MTFs in the GTs. We have a good selection next year with 5 in total.
2 in the Alps, 2 in the Pyrenees and 1 in the Vosges. The stage to Mende is usually selective too with 10% gradient over 3km.

It will be interesting to see how the stages to Chatel and Megeve will be raced, but I don't think they'll be selective enough for GC gaps.
The organisers have thrown in some variety with the stages in Denmark and Northern France. These stages may be susceptible to crosswinds to create echelons.
I'm really intrigued to see how Pogacar will fare over the cobbles. It would make for exciting viewing if he lost a bit of ground here. Fair play to the organisers for putting in 5 new sectors of pavé that have never been used in the Tour or Roubaix before. Should be interesting.

A 40km time trial is a decent length of CLM. I would like to see the days of the 2x 50km TTs of the 1990/2000s era. But perhaps the organisers feel that 100km of TT in 1 Tour blows out too many contenders.

I'm happy with the route. Something for everyone in it.
 
two 10s...We don't hate cycling.
If this route is a 10, the scale should go to 20. Compared to the potential by France has to offer, this route is really mediocre. No mountain stages where it is a good chance for a long range attack, no long mountain stages, no really good medium mountain stages, etc.

@Libertine Seguros: We need somebody with perspective here!
 
+
There are things I like - Granon, double ascent to Galibier, classical Alpe d'Huez triology, Hautacam stage with Spandelles.
Different ascent to Peyragudes is interesting too.
This Tour has 3 legit Queen stages.
I also don't understand criticism about PDBF and Mende - they always provide nice action on TV.
53km of ITT is good too.

-
The thing I find strange is that they will have 11 (!) MTFs/uphill finishes, including final ITT.
They will also have 7 (!) MTFs/uphill finishes in a row (stages 6 -12).
It looks like Vuelta style Tour. It could lead to conservative racing apart from finales of final climbs. Therefore, sometimes more is less.

I will give 7/10. I would have given it 8 or 9 if they started 2nd week with Granon and Alpe followed by stage with descent.
 
Reactions: Tonton
I joked about giving it a phat, thikk 0 but seing those 9s and 10s i think i give it a 0 (in this case a 1) just to counterbalance it. This route doesn't deserve anything more than 6. I like the flat stages, hate the mountain ones (even with Granon!). Sorry, but this year they were neutered and next year makes me believe that within next 5 years we'll have Sam Benett vs Ewan fightning for yellow in Paris.

For anybody who thinks of long range attacks... This is Tour de France, where money talks. There are too many strong teams for that and too big of the stakes for risque strategies. That's where mainly Vuelta shines. This can be possible only if the leader's team is weak and considering that Pog has like 200% chance of having yellow and next year UAE will have a monster team around him... I believe in the Tour farther action needs to be kinda forced and none of the "mountain" stages do this.

Now thinking about it... If there's a healthy Roglic and a healthy Pogacar and Roglic is like 2 mins down does he have the balls to risk it and try a downhill push on either Ancizan or Spandelles? The "mountain" stages are neutered to the point that a full team push might be possible... but then next year UAE will be much stronger. Yep, this route is #$&%. Not a 0 but nothing more than 5.
 
+
The monster col du granon, that's the type of climbs that the giro does and people want in the tour. They gave what people are always complaining, a long climb, steep, with a lot of altitude, and with a very narrow road.
Alpe d huez
The design of chatel's stage, very good for a attack from far.
Col des spandelles and hautacam.
53 km of itt.
Cobbles.
Galibier.
Mur de peguere, very difficult climb, with a very good possibility of a attack from far.

-
I'm sick and tired of la panche des belles filles.

Megeve stage it's ridiculous, the end in the megeve altiport it's great, but they should put montee bisanne behind that final climb, it would be a perfect enchainment for a attack from far in bisanne.
Peyragudes stage.

8/10
 
5.
Some nice climbs, but a mediocre, by the numbers Prudhomme route.
Many things and concepts just feel so vanilla and boring, hard to get hyped for something like this.
Yeah, even the "best" designed mountain stage, the final one, still is just 3 consecutive hard climbs in a row.

But IMO the worst they do is always have he hardest stages still be only about the final MTF.
 
The same mistakes being repeated year after year is so disappointing, especially when good things like this year's Le Creusot stage aren't. This is the marquee event of the sport, the one that should be setting standards and bringing in new fans more than any other race on the calendar. These routes are a detriment to the Tour's ability to fulfil either role and I'm judging accordingly.
And that is the reason why they play it safe; they can't afford to do something 'different'.......
 
Reactions: jmdirt
5
as a brazilian i must follow football and even though we have a eternal pool of fantastic players we have horrible "new" batch of coaches and even worse management that some how convinced most that "our #10 should be our #5" is the way to go..
i think something similar applies here..
such a "given" audience, excellent terrain to choose from, not to mention money/logistics, they go for the "average"..
just a waste...
in both cases...
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS