Tour de France Rate the 2022 Tour de France route

Page 3 - 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 8.5%
  • 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
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'd say the French tend to complain more, actually. I mean yes the media does its usual cheerleading (although not always, for example a few years back the limited amount of individual TT km's elicited quite a bit of criticism) but you'll find 2 areas where French cycling fans are often vocally unhappy with a Tour route:

  • not visiting enough regions or showing off enough of the country
  • not enough climb finishes
This Tour has been criticized for the former (people are always unhappy on that front) but the overall mood is positive regarding the latter. I'm no different, i.e. give me a good climb finish because even when the stage can be a bore fest, at least there's some GC action at the end.

People last year were unhappy for example about the Ventoux stage in the 2021 Tour because of the descent finish (& the way the stage unfolded, with Vingegaard losing his advantage gained on the climb, later gave credence to those complaints IMO). A good climb finish is the best "fail safe" fall back option which at least gives some certain time gaps & action - whereas routes designed by the organizers to encourage "adventurous racing" have a tendency to backfire & create duds, i.e. I'm thinking of typical Prudhomme stages with new climbs in the middle mountains found god knows where which he oversells as super hard... then a peloton of 40+ riders pass the top without any problems. And stages with the big climbs way too far from the finish. That also used to happen too much in the 2010's.
 
Always find these polls interesting . I have no idea how i would rate it, as i do not know the roads all over France and i'm wondering how many on this forum actually have a profound knowledge on that subject. Sure, I can see the stage lengths, where and when there will be mountains, ITT's or pavé sections and how those stages relate to each other on the calender and it would be fair to rate those "obvious" factors. But other than that, i wouldn't know how to rate the course in its entirety with my personal knowledge. There 's so much that can decide a race that is not in the presentation. I guess we could all rate it according to the info at hand and our personal knowledge, but i always wonder about people who do have enough knowledge of the actual roads to be able to either mope and moan about the course, or to otherwise praise it. This is no knock on people who actually do have a strong opinion one way or another, just that i'm not one of them since i don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, it's also out of my comfort zone and personal interest (at least at that level). I'll rate it after the race :laughing:
 
Always find these polls interesting . I have no idea how i would rate it, as i do not know the roads all over France and i'm wondering how many on this forum actually have a profound knowledge on that subject. Sure, I can see the stage lengths, where and when there will be mountains, ITT's or pavé sections and how those stages relate to each other on the calender and it would be fair to rate those "obvious" factors. But other than that, i wouldn't know how to rate the course in its entirety with my personal knowledge. There 's so much that can decide a race that is not in the presentation. I guess we could all rate it according to the info at hand and our personal knowledge, but i always wonder about people who do have enough knowledge of the actual roads to be able to either mope and moan about the course, or to otherwise praise it. This is no knock on people who actually do have a strong opinion one way or another, just that i'm not one of them since i don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, it's also out of my comfort zone and personal interest (at least at that level). I'll rate it after the race :laughing:
I've lived in France for a decade and ridden most of the TdF cols/climbs in the Alps (and have a general idea of what a stage in, say, the Carcassone area will be like but my knowledge of the Pyrenees is limited to hiking and driving around.) But yeah, it's easier to rate a route if you have ridden the roads. You can look to precedent but every stage is going to be raced differently unless it's a pan-flat sprint.

Having said that, I do think it's funny when some people slag on a multi-climb mountain stage as being too short or too easy. I rode the Etape du Tour in 2019 (stage from Albertville to Val Thorens, ultimately shortened by rockslide), and it was effing HARD, although just 135 km. There were 4500 meters of climbing, with about 70 percent uphill (because of 35 km final uphill drag to VT). To make the time cut you had to at least ride constantly, without a typical lunch/coffee break in the middle. I'll never say a multimountain stage is too easy ever again.
 
I've lived in France for a decade and ridden most of the TdF cols/climbs in the Alps (and have a general idea of what a stage in, say, the Carcassone area will be like but my knowledge of the Pyrenees is limited to hiking and driving around.) But yeah, it's easier to rate a route if you have ridden the roads. You can look to precedent but every stage is going to be raced differently unless it's a pan-flat sprint.

Having said that, I do think it's funny when some people slag on a multi-climb mountain stage as being too short or too easy. I rode the Etape du Tour in 2019 (stage from Albertville to Val Thorens, ultimately shortened by rockslide), and it was effing HARD, although just 135 km. There were 4500 meters of climbing, with about 70 percent uphill (because of 35 km final uphill drag to VT). To make the time cut you had to at least ride constantly, without a typical lunch/coffee break in the middle. I'll never say a multimountain stage is too easy ever again.
I don't think we should compare these World Tour pros to ourselves.
 
I've lived in France for a decade and ridden most of the TdF cols/climbs in the Alps (and have a general idea of what a stage in, say, the Carcassone area will be like but my knowledge of the Pyrenees is limited to hiking and driving around.) But yeah, it's easier to rate a route if you have ridden the roads. You can look to precedent but every stage is going to be raced differently unless it's a pan-flat sprint.

Having said that, I do think it's funny when some people slag on a multi-climb mountain stage as being too short or too easy. I rode the Etape du Tour in 2019 (stage from Albertville to Val Thorens, ultimately shortened by rockslide), and it was effing HARD, although just 135 km. There were 4500 meters of climbing, with about 70 percent uphill (because of 35 km final uphill drag to VT). To make the time cut you had to at least ride constantly, without a typical lunch/coffee break in the middle. I'll never say a multimountain stage is too easy ever again.
You're missing the point. We're not literally saying that such mountain odysseys are easy. The point is, is that these guys are professionals, and they used to race 200 kms stages across multiple mountains, yet these days they 'only' race 150 kms (despite the fact that the sport is always becoming more and more professional), approximately.

I am sure that running a marathon is effing hard for the vast majority of joggers, but that doesn't mean that it would make sense for the Olympics to reduce their course to around 30 kms. Make sense?
 
You're missing the point. We're not literally saying that such mountain odysseys are easy. The point is, is that these guys are professionals, and they used to race 200 kms stages across multiple mountains, yet these days they 'only' race 150 kms (despite the fact that the sport is always becoming more and more professional), approximately.

I am sure that running a marathon is effing hard for the vast majority of joggers, but that doesn't mean that it would make sense for the Olympics to reduce their course to around 30 kms. Make sense?
My point is that shorter doesn't mean easier. The marathon analogy doesn't work because it's a race predicated on a certain distance, like all track events. Besides, the Tour used to have 300 km stages...so I see no problem with shorter mountain stages.
 
-Not nearly enough time-trialing. A long prologue and a medium-length ITT stuck at the very end of the course where it can't even do its job properly is bad bad bad
-There's only two stages over 200 km (one of them exactly 200 km)
-F** Planche des Belles Filles again
-Great to see cobbles but again, the stage is way too short, like they were more interested in minimizing gaps (gasp)
-Most of the mountain stages are short. One of them is medium length. They all have the hardest climb at the end. They're all MTFs. When combined with the lack of time-trialing this means that we're going to see like 5 km of racing in the mountains unless Pogačar doesn't like the idea
-Why does the super short, medium difficulty Peyragudes stage come before the final, much harder Hautacam stage (which is also the last mountain stage). This is terrible macrodesign
-At least there aren't many flat stages?

I dunno, 4/10?
 
Last edited:
-Most of the mountain stages are short. One of them is medium length. They all have the hardest climb at the end. They're all MTFs. When combined with the lack of time-trialing this means that we're going to see like 5 km of racing in the mountains unless Pogačar doesn't like the idea
It might be like this in the Alps. But once a hierarchy has been established, those who can't live with the best in the final km's of a climb (or need to make up some time) will launch attacks from further out.

That's what happened with Bernal in the recent Vuelta on the Covadonga stage.
 
I have finally cast my vote. Also a 4.

Initially I thought 3, then was heading towards 5, but no, a 4 it is.

The mountain stages are just too short, and the use of the rest days (the stages that surround them) is just too poor.

There are some decent aspects. The first ITT should create enough gaps to reduce the likelihood of crashes (less riders chasing yellow), and with the ITT at the end the total amount of race of truth kms is far from great, but not abysmal.

I don't care either about the overload of traditional climbs in this route. They have actually introduced a lot of new climbs in recent years, and I actually like the return of alp d'huez. Granon will be good too (and fortunately comes beforehand).

The Alps will probably be more decisive than the Pyrenees, and with cobbles and PDBF in week one, this route is not very back loaded, which is refreshing.

It's frustrating, because it's close to a good route. Add 50 kms to a couple of mountain stages, an extra early mountain on some of them, plus another 20-30 kms of ITT, and move the second and third rest days forward a day.
 
Always find these polls interesting . I have no idea how i would rate it, as i do not know the roads all over France and i'm wondering how many on this forum actually have a profound knowledge on that subject. Sure, I can see the stage lengths, where and when there will be mountains, ITT's or pavé sections and how those stages relate to each other on the calender and it would be fair to rate those "obvious" factors. But other than that, i wouldn't know how to rate the course in its entirety with my personal knowledge. There 's so much that can decide a race that is not in the presentation. I guess we could all rate it according to the info at hand and our personal knowledge, but i always wonder about people who do have enough knowledge of the actual roads to be able to either mope and moan about the course, or to otherwise praise it. This is no knock on people who actually do have a strong opinion one way or another, just that i'm not one of them since i don't consider myself sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, it's also out of my comfort zone and personal interest (at least at that level). I'll rate it after the race :laughing:
I echo that 100%.
Nevertheless I’m going to have my 2 cents … I think there are plenty of good things to celebrate:

  • TT start, so no sprinter hijacking the yellow jersey.
  • TT start creates GC tension from day 1.
  • the bridge stage in Denmark will be spectacular.
  • Cobbles (but not to excess). Meaning I hope they don’t break anyone (but do mix up the GC)
  • Yes, Belles filles is a cliche but it does mean more GC action in week 1.
  • first weekend is potentially interesting too. Lausanne and Chatel are a bit of a change (for me) and look like lively stages.
  • Start of week 2 potentially interesting too. One of the Megeve/ Granon stages should shake things up
  • it is not a ‘Wiggins route’ (i.e. designed to favour anyone in particular)
  • No silly gimmicks like AdH/ Ventoux twice
  • nothing wrong with short stages
After that I glaze over a bit. Other negatives:
  • not too much else of interest in week 1
  • second weekend, transition stages, doesn’t catch the eye (I suppose Mende could make something happen)
  • why not just a flat run-in to AdH and then have the GC gang go into it together and go head to head
  • AdH on 14/7 is a bit corny.
Overall - if Teddy Pogser stays upright over the cobbles I suspect it will be all over before the last week. But that’s just because he is so much the strongest rider in the peloton right now. 6 but nearly 7.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I look at next year's Tour profile within the context of current year cycling & "who" the best riders are: classics specialist trio (WvA, van der Poel & Alaphilippe) & GC trio (Pogacar, Roglic, Bernal).

We have a first week of cobbles, cross winds & sketchy stages, we have stages with a "classics" feel & we have 5 mountain top finishes + 3 others which could also be considered MTF's finishes. On a scale between how much Prudhomme & ASO occasionally mess things up versus a great route for those riders to perform on, I'd say we're definitely in the second category.

And to the people saying "Pog will crush this", I say maybe, maybe not, but the scene is sure as hell set for his number one rival (Roglic) to do what he does best on steep finishes & therefore give us a great duel & a great Tour de France. With Bernal as an outsider & Ineos looking to exploit anything.

It should be good. That's just my own feeling (& even shorter mountain stages have been known to produce classics because the race goes full gas with a GC battle from the start).
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS