Tour de France Rate the 2022 Tour de France route

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Rate the TDF route

  • 1

    Votes: 5 5.3%
  • 2

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • 4

    Votes: 8 8.4%
  • 5

    Votes: 22 23.2%
  • 6

    Votes: 15 15.8%
  • 7

    Votes: 22 23.2%
  • 8

    Votes: 11 11.6%
  • 9

    Votes: 4 4.2%
  • 10

    Votes: 6 6.3%

  • Total voters
    95
7

To make this a 9 or a 10, a few small adjustments are needed

  1. Stage 1 ITT needs to be 5 km longer
  2. Stage 20 ITT needs to be 15 km longer
  3. Grannon stage needs maybe 50 km more. Even if flat
  4. The Peyragudes stage should be routed as follows: Tourmalet, Ancizan, Azet, Peyragudes. Even if that adds 80 km of flat before Tourmalet. It can be the big, long, classic Pyrenean stage
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I won't rate it by participating in the poll. As i am not sure if i should give it 1 or 10. That is if the Tour will deliver, GC vise, then it deserves 10. If GC race will be over on the cobbles. Then it was a mistake to introduce a stage with such high level of specialisation involved. And to drive the whole peloton over it. Due to the 2021 fiasco the backslash could be tremendous.

We'll see.
 
I'm torn between spending the whole day on a sandy beach, sipping cocktails and enjoying Cyprus crystal clear waters or delving deep into the forum's biggest nemesis: the Tour de France route presentation.

But I'm on holidays so it must be the second.
The forum's TDF route discussion is more exciting than newly wedded bedroom action?

SafeBet receives the tap on the shoulder: "Sorry, but I'm not in the mood."

SafeBet's Other Half: "Let me guess; short stages?"

SafeBet: "I knew I married The One."
 
As I've already mentioned the burden of suspense lies on the riders... the parcourse doesn't affect the current field that much.
The cobbles will be a new tester for some and the echelons shaped the racing previously the wind played a part.
I assume the contenders will be anxious to hit the high mountains.
Demanding route overall. Very few (if any) days to take it easy.

A shortcoming of the route certainly is the length and outlook of the mountain stages even should the backloading produce a finer selection. The altitudes they'll tackle deserve classic distances.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
It's not bad it's just so incredibly uninspiring. I'm welcoming the lack of flat sprint stages though I don't think the stages we get instead will be that much better. I also like the inclusion of cobbles and a few returning climbs like Granon, but mostly it's just a super basic Tour route.

A lot has been said about the short mountain stages and I dislike them too but the thing that annoys me much, much more is the order of the stages in the main mountain ranges. I genuinely like mountain stages that are on the easier side. They offer a different kind of racing. But it annoys the sh*t out of me that recently the ASO always puts them before the main mountain stages. I would really want to see the Foix stage after a mtf for example, but like this...it will simply always go to waste and so in reality there are really only 5 GC relevant mountain stages.

Also two of them end on recently introduced super steep finishing ramps so f#ck the new LPdBF finsish and f#ck the new Peyragudes finish. How race organizers still think those ranps are a good idea is beyond me.
 
It's not bad it's just so incredibly uninspiring. I'm welcoming the lack of flat sprint stages though I don't think the stages we get instead will be that much better. I also like the inclusion of cobbles and a few returning climbs like Granon, but mostly it's just a super basic Tour route.

A lot has been said about the short mountain stages and I dislike them too but the thing that annoys me much, much more is the order of the stages in the main mountain ranges. I genuinely like mountain stages that are on the easier side. They offer a different kind of racing. But it annoys the sh*t out of me that recently the ASO always puts them before the main mountain stages. I would really want to see the Foix stage after a mtf for example, but like this...it will simply always go to waste and so in reality there are really only 5 GC relevant mountain stages.

Also two of them end on recently introduced super steep finishing ramps so f#ck the new LPdBF finsish and f#ck the new Peyragudes finish. How race organizers still think those ranps are a good idea is beyond me.
The ordering of the stages and the hardest stages being all 'bout that bass MTF is what is the most tilting tbh. Vanilla stage design can be good if climbs and stages are in a decent order. Most recently Prat d'Albis is a great example of that. Also the Pyrenees in 2020 were pretty good, because there was no MTF on the 2nd day in the Pyrenees.

Not every mountain stage can be a behemoth, and in fact I'm kind of against that. I would've preferred for the AdH stage to go over Lauteret and do a double ascent of Alpe and be objectively easier and shorter than go Galibier/CdF again. Same for the overuse of HC MTF, especially later in the race.

I'm a bit unsure about Peyragudes whether this side is better or not, but I suppose the old design could actually do better considering the racing we saw on the Peyresourde in 2020.
 
I Gave a 7.
Mountain stages could be longer.
De stage/finish to Megeve is not good.

There are a short and a longer time trial. There will be echelons (i hope so). Cobbles stage is short but not bad, carnage will be there anyway. I Like the Granon and Alpe d'Huez stages.
Some stages for the punchers...
It's a good variation.
 
The ordering of the stages and the hardest stages being all 'bout that bass MTF is what is the most tilting tbh. Vanilla stage design can be good if climbs and stages are in a decent order. Most recently Prat d'Albis is a great example of that. Also the Pyrenees in 2020 were pretty good, because there was no MTF on the 2nd day in the Pyrenees.

Not every mountain stage can be a behemoth, and in fact I'm kind of against that. I would've preferred for the AdH stage to go over Lauteret and do a double ascent of Alpe and be objectively easier and shorter than go Galibier/CdF again. Same for the overuse of HC MTF, especially later in the race.

I'm a bit unsure about Peyragudes whether this side is better or not, but I suppose the old design could actually do better considering the racing we saw on the Peyresourde in 2020.
I am becoming a little less angry about the high mountain stages now (though still very disappointed by the overall length of these stages). I think that stages 11 and 12 will work well. Granon is simply too hard to not see a serious GC battle, regardless of what is to come, and ADH usually produces the goods imo, in particular when the Alps come before the Pyrenees.

As for the Pyrenees, stage 17 really isn't that hard, and maybe this still gives some hope for stage 16 which is in itself a good design and longer (though not long). I'd possibly prefer a flat stage 17 (therefore all but guaranteeing racing on stage 16, which probably won't be much of a stage as it is anyway). We know that stage 18 is going to be pretty good.

I also quite like the look of stage 9 before the rest day (whether that final 15 km climb is quite steep enough is the ?). The stages to PDBF and Mende are okay for what they are (but they should finish before the gravel on stage 7).
 
Reactions: Tonton
Looks like a balanced, tough, slightly uninspired route which will definitely see the strongest rider win. There isn't much room for tactical play.
The hope for echelons is two-sided; if we see them they are exciting, if there aren't any those stages soon become pure boredom. And if teams get left behind, it's probably FDJ and the likes, not Pogacar this time.
I like the cobbles, although they aren't fair in a GT.
I don't have a problem with the mountain-stages per se, it's just that they all look pretty much the same.

After thinking about it, if it's not simply about money the thought behind this is probably that there are less stages this time that will go to break-aways; the stages are rather easy to control and hence there will be a battle for yellow at the end, even if it doesn't last long, on each day.

On the one hand it's nice that it's a rather international route, but on the other hand I'm pretty conservative, after all it's the Tour de France and I don't like it very much when it has a bunch of stages in Denmark, Belgium and Switzerland.

Can't rate it, it's certainly okay and fair, but it's not super-cool.
 
To those people rating this route 8 or above: what kind of route would it take for you to rate a GT 5 or below, and what's the last time a GT actually had that kind of route?
I won't assign an arbitrary bad rating to a "bad" Tour on paper, but a Tour which features the following is IMO a very bad Tour de France:

  • excessive number of sprint stages & transition stages
  • middle-mountain stages oversold as GC battles when nothing ever happens
  • all major difficulties and insanely tough stages shoved into week 3, or even at the back of week 3. That doesn't help racing because riders reserve their strength until the end & the race is blocked until then.
  • mountain stages with major climbs way, way from the finish, followed by either a long flat or some insignificant small cat 2 climb. Prudhomme was addicted to the theory the race would explode early in those stages for a long time. So it's nice to see he's gone back to a much more traditional meat grinder on the final climbs.
I know there's a load of negativity in this particular forum, but over here in France the Tour 2022 has by & large been very well received.
 
Reactions: Carols and tobydawq
To those people rating this route 8 or above: what kind of route would it take for you to rate a GT 5 or below, and what's the last time a GT actually had that kind of route?
Just 1 or 2 finish summits, very mountains stages with final descents of a lot of kilometres that neutralize attacks, finish summites like tignes because it's the type of climbs that doesn't make diferences, they are not very steep.
No itts, or a short itt.
A lot of sprint stages.
I don't see that on this route, so i give 8.
Tour 2012.
 
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.
If Roglic is anywhere down on Pogacar 2 minutes the Tour would be completely over. Finito. Finished. No chance for anything.

The only chance that we would get anything close to a good race is if in the first 5 stages there are considerable gaps against Pogacar. And that could happen. Other than that it won't be even close.
 
Advantages:
-Granon MTF and a few other difficult finishes (classical but proven in action)
-short but intense mountain stages including lots of hard climbs
-variety of terrain (lots of mountains and hills, cobbles, not too many flat stages)

Disadvantages:
-order of some mountain stages is bad
-lack of one long mountain stage (i.e. five col ride in the Pyrenees)

7/10
 
If Roglic is anywhere down on Pogacar 2 minutes the Tour would be completely over. Finito. Finished. No chance for anything.

The only chance that we would get anything close to a good race is if in the first 5 stages there are considerable gaps against Pogacar. And that could happen. Other than that it won't be even close.
And how might it have been designed for Pogacar not to be unbeatable (assuming he is)?
 
One without cobbles, with many sprint stages and without a start in Denmark.
That's fair. As a Dutchman, having GT starts in my own country has lost its appeal a long time ago ;)
I know there's a load of negativity in this particular forum, but over here in France the Tour 2022 has by & large been very well received.
The day this forum likes a Tour route better than most is the day the world ends. I know full well this forum isn't representative at all, but there's a lot of people out there who react positively to every route announcement ever. I was wondering if that was the case for some on here too, thanks to everyone who responded for proving me wrong.
 
That's fair. As a Dutchman, having GT starts in my own country has lost its appeal a long time ago ;)

The day this forum likes a Tour route better than most is the day the world ends. I know full well this forum isn't representative at all, but there's a lot of people out there who react positively to every route announcement ever. I was wondering if that was the case for some on here too, thanks to everyone who responded for proving me wrong.
I mean every news outlet will always sing its praise of a route, that's just how it goes. They highlight the 2 exciting things and the July fans will read Alpe d'Huez and cobbles and be happy
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY