Tour de France Rate the 2022 Tour de France route

Page 4 - 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
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:
Do you also have no opinion about a meal unless you have a profound knowledge of all the food available in a country?

You (like the majority here) have seen plenty of racing on different routes over the years, and you have different expectations for different routes. While it may be crude, we all have a model of how a race unfolds and how riders respond to what a route has to offer. We may not have a perfect idea of all possible routes in France, but we clearly have access to what actual routes that have been raced in the past. I think the 2014 Tour route was far better than the 2012 route, because I'd expect better racing on the former route than the latter. I'm sure you too have a fuzzy order of what previous actual routes you could have expected better racing from. And while our knowledge of the route of next year is imperfect, I think it's possible for you too to compare it with previous routes.
 
Last edited:
I think dawqqy has a valid point. Some of the reactions (mine included) are stale, predictable, and low-effort. You might even say ritualistic. Unfortunately, not much of the meta whining is of high quality either, but we (read: I) probably don't deserve better?

If the main route criticism is about what kind of racing that the route allows or incentivises (big if?), then I think there are three main levels of disagreement: First, there's the fundamental question of what a good race is and what we hope to watch when we turn on the TV, and what qualities we prioritise. Second, we have different models of how a route functions and of what the plausible alternatives are. Finally, even if we agree on what we hope for and how to get there (thus also of the quality of the route), we may still disagree on how big expectations we should have and the tone is which we should air our judgement.

I think both the route criticism and the meta criticism would improve if it was more specific. Personally, I think novelty is overrated and I wouldn't mind the same MTF in every single edition, if it was good. It's not like I complain about the Paris-Roubaix route changing so little as it does, as it does its job well.

This is a bit simplified, in that we may also value non-racing aspects of the route, like where it goes (does it visit enough of France, does it start near me), how novel and create it is, does it produce good images and so on.
 
As many before me already pointed out, this route seems to be the result of some very uninspired designs, rather than being a bad route as such.

Still, the first week is good enough. The conceptual design of these 9 days is actually very good, but the proper execution lacks somehow.
I would have liked a proper hilly stage, the cobbled stage could have been a bit harder (now it seems more like a gimmick, without really hard sectors and being rather short) and the 6th time LPdBF in 11 editions is just too much.
The Alps are acceptable. The stage to Mégève is rather bland, the stage to Le Granon is very good, but would have been better if there was another type of stage the day after. I'm thinking of something like Briançon-Montgenèvre-Mont-Cenis-Télégraphe-Galibier-Sarenne (ok, that would be 2x Galibier north, gimmicky too).
The transition too the pyrenees is very, very traditional. You could have a proper ambush stage to Saint Etienne or Mende. Instead we have a flattish stage and the perennial finish on the Croix-Neuve. Carcassonne is a traditional too, nice site, but can't be excited about the stage.
The Pyrenees seem to be in the wrong order, with first a descent finish and then 2 mtf's, with the second being the hardest.
I kindy like the longish tt at the end, but maybe it would be better placed somewhere between Alps and Pyrenees.

All in all, a 4 for inspiration and a 6 for the actual course.
 
I think dawqqy has a valid point. Some of the reactions (mine included) are stale, predictable, and low-effort. You might even say ritualistic. Unfortunately, not much of the meta whining is of high quality either, but we (read: I) probably don't deserve better?
But can you really rate the reactions? Are you familiar with every single theoretically possible reaction to this route all over the internet?
 
Do you also have no opinion about a meal unless you have a profound knowledge of all the food available in a country?

You (like the majority here) have seen plenty of racing on different routes over the years, and you have different expectations for different routes. While it may be crude, we all have a model of how a race unfolds and how riders respond to what a route has to offer. We may not have a perfect idea of all possible routes in France, but we clearly have access to what actual routes that have been raced in the past. I think the 2014 Tour route was far better than the 2012 route, because I'd expect better racing on the former route than the latter. I'm sure you too have a fuzzy order of what previous actual routes you could have expected better racing from. And while our knowledge of the route of next year is imperfect, I think it's possible for you too to compare it with previous routes.
I think i addressed in my post that we have info that we can compare to earlier references. However, in my personal opinion that alone is not enough to make a conclusive argument either way. You don't have to agree, i'm merely talking for myself here. I've seen plenty of races or stages that were expected to be borefests yet turned out great, and the exact opposite.

As for your food analogy, it doesn't really fit but i'm actually glad you made it. I 'm usually not asked to give my opinion about a dish before i had the chance to eat it, regardless of whether i have knowledge of all the food available. When i get a menu, i have an idea of the things i like based on personal preferences and references. But often something that looks great in the description, turns out to be a huge letdown, and often i try something i have little faith in, and get pleasantly surprised.
 
7/10

The first week is tough. It's interesting and varied, but da gerous for crashes. The Danish stage with the long bridge reminds me of 1999, when Alex Zülle lost six minutes. It can be very dangerous for unlucky GC guys. Good helpers on the flat will be important. The cobbled stage is serious. Some GC riders can lose minutes there. The Terrific Threesome - MvdP, WvA and Alaf - will have chances to win a stage. I'm glad there won't be too many bunch sprints.

The second week is tougher than this year. The queen stage finishes on the Granon, which is a beast. Instead of L'Alpe d'Huez I would have preferred Les Deux Alpes for a change, but it could still be an interesting battle between the Slovenians and the South Americans.

The third week has two classic Pyrenees stages. Not very original, but the riders can make it interesting. Hopefully somebody will play all or nothing in the last mountain stage by attacking on the Aubisque. I would have preferred one mountain time trial next to the two flat ones.

In general it's a Tour with short stages, but tough, and made for a rider who's good on all terrains. It's hard to look beyond the two Slovenians for a favourite.
 
Possibly. But that argument goes both ways.
Or because there are parts of the route we don't know of. An uncategorized climb, some narrow streets at a desicive point on the course... Etc.
LaFlammeRouge traced the whole route, also based on the animated maps that were shown during the presentation. I don't think they missed any significant climbs. IMO it was pretty clear this time around. More so than usual.
 
Tour is made and designed to bring in casuals and many viewers, some people only watch the Tour and a lot people only tune in to watch the last part of the stages, so it has to be a lot of action at the end of them. The last hour of the race each day, everything packed into that. Like your favorite program/series. Most people (casuals) dont have the time or attention span to watch for 4-5 hours. Some of us dont do or cant do that each day either.

It is the most commercial race, and I guess we will just have to live with that. Enjoy it for what it is, a spectacle. Like a blockbuster movie. Sometimes they are good, while also just being very surfaced and predictable.

We still have a lot of races that are better on the calendar. We get our stuff in the end, who follows it closely all year.

Im very indifferent on the route and race. I will just be hoping for a good show. If it ends up underwhelming, I have not been caught up in high expectations and the hype of it. Nor am I gonna trash it beforehand. I understand that is what they have to do to keep a lot of different parties happy. I think a niche group of cycling "nerds" fall below some of those other parties unfortunately.
 
Honestly, I think that's largely not true. Casual fans prefer better racing too when they actually get the chance to see it, and there's no reason why the final hour of a good race should be less entertaining than the final hour of a bad race where nothing happens before the very last bit. Viewers might miss this or that attack, but they'll still see the chase, the uncertainty over the final outcome, the battle. Most of the time it's a better 1-hour spectacle than what ASO and Unipublic claim modern audiences want, and casual fans recognize it as such. We didn't see Contador's attack in Fuente Dé, and in the 80s and early 90s it was customary for broadcasts to begin with an already shattered race, with riders all over the place and the audience only getting to see the final 1-2 hours of it.

It's very common for organizers to make these unsubstantiated claims about modern viewers and I see very little reason to just accept them and run with them. Better racing simply makes for better TV. This argument isn't even internally consistent - we're probably getting more TV hours than ever, so if they want to concentrate everything on the final hour why do they even broadcast anything else.

It doesn't make sense. It's simply a mantra organizers and cycling media have convinced themselves with so they don't question it, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. They talk about how viewer numbers validate their strategy but we never see any actual analysis, there's no indiction that the current model really does work better at attracting audiences.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Of course casual fans prefer better racing, who doesnt, but they dont usually watch it for 4-5 hours. Most will want to watch the attacks happening in real time or perhaps will only watch the highlights.

They will always build up that things could happen here and there to keep people invested, when we probably know it will only happen things at the end most of the times if that is the hardest part of the race.

I think what happened or was customary in the 80s or 90s is irrelevant today. Especially when it comes to broadcasting and TV.

Organizers can make claims that does not make sense but they also have a lot of different parties to think of. They will have to make some excuse for some of the decisions being made at some point to appease those being critical of them.

More TV-hours or why they broadcast the whole race is just to have time for more commercials. Not because they wanna broadcast better racing or for it be action all the way, just because that would be good TV. The riders would not race that way either even if the route was like that on paper. They know that there are people that will watch the whole race anyway and they know the audience will peak towards the final hour. Would it be good each time, not every, that the race was over? Dont think so.

Why would they provide analysis or strategies when other broadcasters, not even related to cycling, could use that strategy or analysis? They all fighting to draw the audience to their platform/program to generate money from commercials and so on.
 
Reactions: 18-Valve. (pithy)
I vote 0. The reason for that is that the route will have zero effect on who wins the GC. The only thing that will be in play are the sideshows. Pogachar the GOAT will win inspite of trains, wind tunnels, osymmetric chain rings, and other marginal gains by removing his computer which provides him with 2x strength.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Of course casual fans prefer better racing, who doesnt, but they dont usually watch it for 4-5 hours. Most will want to watch the attacks happening in real time or perhaps will only watch the highlights.

They will always build up that things could happen here and there to keep people invested, when we probably know it will only happen things at the end most of the times if that is the hardest part of the race.

I think what happened or was customary in the 80s or 90s is irrelevant today. Especially when it comes to broadcasting and TV.

Organizers can make claims that does not make sense but they also have a lot of different parties to think of. They will have to make some excuse for some of the decisions being made at some point to appease those being critical of them.

More TV-hours or why they broadcast the whole race is just to have time for more commercials. Not because they wanna broadcast better racing or for it be action all the way, just because that would be good TV. The riders would not race that way either even if the route was like that on paper. They know that there are people that will watch the whole race anyway and they know the audience will peak towards the final hour. Would it be good each time, not every, that the race was over? Dont think so.

Why would they provide analysis or strategies when other broadcasters, not even related to cycling, could use that strategy or analysis? They all fighting to draw the audience to their platform/program to generate money from commercials and so on.
I wonder, is there any chance finishing town hosts pay more to have their MTF be the focal point of the stage?
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
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:
How long you started to see cycling? If you started to see cycling some time ago, for sure you know 90% of the climbs, descents,cobbles, of this tour.
Even the medium mountains of this tour are well know, mende and megeve.
 
Yeah more people watch the race from the start to the finish than everif they have the opportunity (I think this is pretty accurate although I cant say for sure). And we DO have the opportunity to do it know. I rarely do (I try to with Roubaix, Flanders and Worlds and the most interesting mountain stages), but I know lots of people do - this forum is a testament to that. Even some of my family which aren't like total cycling nerds like to watch the big classics from far out and especially some Tour de France stages in close to all their length - and I would consider my family casuals. So yeah, this is obviously bull and theres no reason to actually design stages in order to minimize that action before say the last climb, or two last climbs or whatever. Thats why I literally hate your classic sprint stage and want to minimize those as much as possible since a) I dont watch these stages and b) all the people I know dont give a rats ass either if Cav wins or not and c) stages are broadcasted in their entirety which means that 7-8 uneventful, flat stages offers close to nothing to the race.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Yeah more people watch the race from the start to the finish than everif they have the opportunity (I think this is pretty accurate although I cant say for sure). And we DO have the opportunity to do it know. I rarely do (I try to with Roubaix, Flanders and Worlds and the most interesting mountain stages), but I know lots of people do - this forum is a testament to that. Even some of my family which aren't like total cycling nerds like to watch the big classics from far out and especially some Tour de France stages in close to all their length - and I would consider my family casuals. So yeah, this is obviously bull and theres no reason to actually design stages in order to minimize that action before say the last climb, or two last climbs or whatever. Thats why I literally hate your classic sprint stage and want to minimize those as much as possible since a) I dont watch these stages and b) all the people I know dont give a rats ass either if Cav wins or not and c) stages are broadcasted in their entirety which means that 7-8 uneventful, flat stages offers close to nothing to the race.
Tour de France mountain stages were probably the first races I actually watched for hours on end. Even though other races might be more hyped on here the Tour will remain the biggest gateway there is.
 
Reactions: Escarabajo
What would the modern peloton think of the 1983 tour de france stage of Bourg D'Oisans to Morzine?


247 km with Glandon, Madeleine, Aravis, Colombiere, Chatillion, with the final climb of the Joux Plane.

The tour should have 1 of these epic stages in every edition. Just balance it out with normal amounts of TTing
 
People are complaining too much. 2001 had six flat(tish) stages in the final week, including the time trial. There was only one stage in the middle mountains, and four in the high mountains. I wonder how people would react if that came back.
The main issue is the lack of variation. Almost eveyrone likes a stage with Galibier and Granon. And Aubisque-Spandelles-Hautacam. But all the mountain stages are short. All the mountain stages are designed for action on the last climb and in several cases the very last kms. And in addition several climbs/MTFs are extremely frequently used. The most overused is probably PDBF and Peyragudes. Only by re-designing the route somewhat (using the same stage starts and finishes) like La Flamme Route suggested, I would have increased the rating of the route from a 5 to perhaps 7. And if doing something more interesting than PBDF and Peyragudes in addition, I could have rated it 8 or 9.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
People are complaining too much. 2001 had six flat(tish) stages in the final week, including the time trial. There was only one stage in the middle mountains, and four in the high mountains. I wonder how people would react if that came back.
Yes but the stage to Alp d'huez was 209 kms (3 HC climbs with Madeleine and Glandon), and there was a 194 kms stage to Pladadet that included 6 climbs, plus 101 kms of ITT that was balanced (including a 32 km MTT), so it's best aspects were extremely good.

They even included one of Libertine Seguros' beloved team time trials :p
 
Reactions: Sandisfan

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS