Giro d'Italia Rate the 2023 Giro d'Italia Route

Rate The Route (10 best, 1 worst)

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
An 8. Mountain stages are tough, and not short (in the 140-160 range that has become typical in the Tour). Just enough flat ITT kms to balance it out. With stage 13 being close to the hardest stage (and with 2 x ITT's in week one) the route isn't that backloaded, at least not for a Giro.

I am more concerned that stage 19 will suffocate racing on stage 18, rather than stage 20 doing so to stage 19. If Remco is 2 minutes ahead, you are more likely to crack him badly after a few hours in the saddle at high altitude then you will on less than an hours ride imo. Time gaps would have to be incredibly close going into stage 19 to see highly defensive riding there.
 
I feel very conflicted about this one.

Positives:
  • Three stages that would be the undisputed queen stage in a Tour or Vuelta, and all of them are solid to very good designs
  • Very cool Zoldo Alto stage
  • Some nice mid-mountain stages
  • A decent amount of TT to balance it
  • No horrible misuses of available terrain like this year's Fedaia, Aprica and Genoa stages. Or Mégève at the Tour. Or like five stages at the past Vuelta. Or... well, you get the point - it's way more common than it should be.
Negatives:
  • Lussari MTT as the final GC day
  • Pacing, both in terms of it being backloaded (a better MTF than Campo Imperatore would have helped a lot) and in terms of groups of stages being ordered poorly (mainly when there's a TT)
  • All the big mountain stages are MTFs
  • Fairly high on the sprint opportunities
  • Less related to sporting aspects, but flying down to Rome for no reason. Cycling is never going to be the most climate-friendly sport but that's no excuse to increase your carbon footprint in a way that pointless - to the contrary, even.
Overall, 7/10, which I think is higher than I gave any route in 2021 or 2022. Based on what we know about the Tour and Vuelta so far, 2023 looks to be an above average year for GT route design in general, especially compared to this year.
 
I feel very conflicted about this one.

Positives:
  • Three stages that would be the undisputed queen stage in a Tour or Vuelta, and all of them are solid to very good designs
  • Very cool Zoldo Alto stage
  • Some nice mid-mountain stages
  • A decent amount of TT to balance it
  • No horrible misuses of available terrain like this year's Fedaia, Aprica and Genoa stages. Or Mégève at the Tour. Or like five stages at the past Vuelta. Or... well, you get the point - it's way more common than it should be.
Negatives:
  • Lussari MTT as the final GC day
  • Pacing, both in terms of it being backloaded (a better MTF than Campo Imperatore would have helped a lot) and in terms of groups of stages being ordered poorly (mainly when there's a TT)
  • All the big mountain stages are MTFs
  • Fairly high on the sprint opportunities
  • Less related to sporting aspects, but flying down to Rome for no reason. Cycling is never going to be the most climate-friendly sport but that's no excuse to increase your carbon footprint in a way that pointless - to the contrary, even.
Overall, 7/10, which I think is higher than I gave any route in 2021 or 2022. Based on what we know about the Tour and Vuelta so far, 2023 looks to be an above average year for GT route design in general, especially compared to this year.

very much this

I think people here are quite positive, because of a few new suprises in especially the high mountains (croix des coeur really nobody expect, and the small road they take to Zoldo Alto). But the balance between week 2 and 3 is poor.

improvements week 1:
actually, I would have liked a hilly circuit at the end of the Napoli stage

improvements week 2:
1 of the 3 stages Viareggio/Tortona/Rivoli should have been designed better. By preference the Viareggio stage
the Bergamo stage should have been harder (especially in the second half of the stage) (in exchange the Bordone stage could have been ____/ ). Eventually they could approach Crans-Montana differently, via Anzere/Lens (not going completely to the valley again) to have a little less valley between the climbs

improvements week 3:
to make week 2 more interesting, I would have made the Bondone stage an easier one. Maybe that sounds silly, the stage is super hard, but still it just seems all about the final climb in mine opinion. So, better use those extra climbs in stages in week 2.

By having a bit more difficulties in the final of the Napoli stages and Viareggio stages, they could be more interesting to watch and the number of sprint stages a bit reduced. By making week 2 a little bit harder and week 3 slightly less harder, the balance between them would work out better.

Overall I vote for a 7
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Sandisfan
I will probably give it a 7 - if a bit drunk maybe even an 8.

First week:
The first week for me is rather good. Sure Blockhaus or something that could actually create some difference at the end of a first week would have been preferred, but in the end we just had Blockhaus this year, so I guess perhaps it was never really an option for this year. Similar hard mountains in the first week are rarely used in the Giro, but I kept dreaming of Nerone, Catria, Petrano - who knows maybe next year.

All things considered for first weeks "mountain stages" we have stage 4 (Lago Laceno) and stage 7 (Campo Imperatore). None of them will be decisive but the scenery beautiful. In addition I believe that Lago Laceno might feel nostalgic. Alex Zulle won here in one of my favorite Giro d'italias (1998). Not that I was rooting for Zulle anyway. Stage 8 to Fossombrone with its tricky ending is also very satisfying. Stage 9 as a long ITT - well 30+ km is also nice. Ideally I would have preferred this as a stage 10 and then perhaps placed a proper mountain stage on stage 9. But within a vacuum, I believe stage 7-9 creates good variation for that weekend.

The opening time trial also looks good. Lets face it - the alternative here would be a boring sprint. 18,4 km is longer than a boring prologue - yet not too long for a first time trial. I would have preferred a route a bit more "bumpy" - also to create three different kind of ITT's. Instead now Stage 1 and Stage 9 are both more or less 100% flat ITT's.

The rest of week ones stages will probably favor the sprinters. Stage 2 for sure, Stage 5 and 6 probably too but if ridden cleverly some of the sprinters more capable of "climbing" might turn the race into a really hard one so that the heavier sprinters won't participate in the final run. Anyway these kind of stages remind me of the 1990's and 2000's where there were rarely any pancake-flat stages. Sure sprinters should make it in the first week but they will have to fight for it - something that I like. Stage 3, I am a bit unsure about. The finale looks tricky and more than the others (5 and 6) this one should make it possible to drop heavy sprinters or for a punchur to maybe make a coup.

All in all the first week is 8/10 for me.


Second week:
The second week is where I am not that happy. Stage 10 and 11 are very dissappointing. Stage 10 could have been so much better and instead it will only be the classical "first tricky part - break away will go" and the second part will be sprinters race to reel it in on the easier part of the stage. I am afraid they will succeed in that. The last 70 km are more or less flat. It could depend on how satisfied the sprinters are from the first week. Stage 11 is even worse and perhaps more wasted. Didn't we have a "muro-stage" to Tortona in recent years? Or do I remember that part completely wrong? Anyway, I don't see any other possibilities than a sprint here.

Stage 12 (Colle Braida) and 13 (Crans Montana) are certainly the highlight in the second week. The problem is the sequence. I doubt Colle Braida will be used by GC-riders for anything considering the upcoming stage 13, and the fact that there is also almost 30 km left from the top of Colle Braida. However it does ensure the stage will go to a break away rather than a sprint. And it certainly will be decisive for that break. Stage 13 is certainly better than feared but at the same time also worse than the rumoured second option for that Crans Montana stage (there was one including Col du Lens and Haute-Nendaz). The potential for a long-range attack is very low due to 50 km left from the top of Col Croix Couer and a relatively long section of flat road (considering it is a mountain stage). With the weak stage 14 all the possibilities of a long range attack would have been there, if only the stage design would have given the riders the opportunities. For what purpose do we now have to endure the most boring saturday in ages for a penultimate weekend? At least they could have made good use of that.

Stage 14 (on a saturday) is by itself an insult to the race. If it was at least going to be a clear cut break-away stage, somehow I could live it. However I find the chances this will be a boring sprintparty much more likely than it will go to the break away. 100 km of flat from the bottom of Sempione to the end line will easily cancel out the Sempione-climb itself. Stage 15 for me seems vastly overrated. Sure it wont be a boring party for the sprinters but I don't really see a GC-fight either. Something we could have had because of the following rest day - if only there was not going to be 30 km downhill plus flats towards the Bergamo-finishline. Perhaps it is impossible to make a better route for that Bergamo-stage - I don't know. Or maybe someone can explain to me why this stage is supposed to be so great. In my memory most Il Lombaridia routes looks tougher and more selective than this one.

All in all the second week will get 5/10 from me.


Third week:
The third week is where the Giro always shine. In a vacuum, I like all of the stages in the last week. Even stage 17 because it suits a purpose which is resting the GC-legs for an extremely tough final. However I have the small complaints of the sequence. If geography was no issue, I would have liked to start out with the MTT to Lussari right after the rest day. Then Bondone, the current stage 17 as stage 18, and then finish with Tre Cime-stage followed by the Val di Zoldo-stage.

Bondone-stage (16) - low altitude tappone with a finishing mountain with steep sections and in addition quite long -as the stage itself (198 km). I in particular, I like the fact that the Bondone is very steep in the bottom. Followed by a "restday (stage 17) the day after, there are no excuses of not going all out on this one. I doubt there will be a long range attack but it is important to have many climbs before Monte Bondone to tire riders out. Lenght is also fine. I am very excited for this stage.

Val di Zoldo-stage (18) - Low altitude mountain stage with steep gradients on the final mountain and as a whole a relatively short stage (160 km) (by Giro-standards, if it was the Tour it would probably had been the longest). In theory you could have a long range attack on this one depending on how the GC stands. The design certainly provide an opportunity on Cibiana. It is always important to have late mountain stages with possibilities of long range attacks. Within the last 30 km of the stage or so, we could see attacks from GC-riders. In addition La Crossetta in the beginning of the stage makes the break away really strong - again to forge a race with a possibility of an assasination of the pink jersey.

Tre Cime-stage (19) - Love it! High altitude mountain stage with a final mountain with steep gradients and an astonishing view. There are many possibilities to attack but realistically a long range attack would probably come on the Passo di Giau. If GC is realtively close - well we probably have to wait for Tre Cime itself. Once again the most important thing is to provide the GC-riders with the opportunity to attack from far out. This stage does that. The lenght (182 km) is also fine. The break away should also consist of only the very strongest break-away specialists left in the race.

Lussari-stage (20) - I don't hate it as much as everybody else. If Remco is in the lead - sure it might be a given he is going to win the race but at least the chances that he is going to falter will be higher on a MTT than a pancake-flat or rolling ITT. If Remco is not in the lead Lussari will be decisive. I don't necessarily believe this stage will deter GC-riders from attacking early on the Tre-Cime stage. Once again if Remco is in the lead (before Tre Cime stage) all the more reason to attack him since they will probably not be able to beat him on this final GC-day that is Lussari. If Remco is not in the lead but still within range of the pink jersey, whoever is the pink jersey would need to put time in him before this MTT. Yes, like everybody else I would have preferred a different placement of this MTT but I am optimistic that it won't destroy the race before hand.

All in all the third week will get 9/10 from me.

So in total 7,3 from me (22/30)
 
6/10.

Would have been an 8 with simple modifications like dropping the Lussari MTT and making one of the stages in week two tougher.

+Fossombrone stage looks good
+Addition of Coeur is good.
+A fairly suitable amount of ITT.
++Three big mountain stages.

-None of biggest climbs like Mortirolo, Stelvio, Finestre, etc.
-Bergamo stage could have been much better
--Lussari MTT is mostly a gimmick and completely unnecessary.
-- None of the big mountain stages that really encourage long range attacks.
--- First two weeks are too easy/too backloaded.
 
Last edited:
-None of biggest climbs like Mortirolo, Stelvio, Finestre, etc.
That is quite funny. I'm just happy that they not always come back every year to the same big climbs. That is something that the giro does much better than the tour. If they treated the Stelvio like the Tourmalet it would be less fun if the climb finaly was there. So, I actually happier with suprises like Croix des Coeur and the different route to Zoldo alto than that I'm sad that this giro has not many classics this year. (still more than enough classics, like Bondone, Giau, Tre Cime)
 
I'm positively surprised!

It's far better than feared, as it has some good mountain stages and ITTs that matter early enough.

It's still not quite back at the level of 2019/2020. Poor pacing (not so much overall, but especially the order of the last stages) and too reliant on MTFs.

It's above average, but that is because I also value the direction it takes over the previous two editions. It makes me more hopeful for the coming years.
 
That is quite funny. I'm just happy that they not always come back every year to the same big climbs. That is something that the giro does much better than the tour. If they treated the Stelvio like the Tourmalet it would be less fun if the climb finaly was there. So, I actually happier with suprises like Croix des Coeur and the different route to Zoldo alto than that I'm sad that this giro has not many classics this year. (still more than enough classics, like Bondone, Giau, Tre Cime)
Agree on Giau and Tre Cime, but not sure if I would consider Bondone a climb in that category. I didn't mention Zoncolan either, and for a reason. That these climbs are mainly which are MTFs and that most of or all the action happens on the last climb. Especially Finestre, Mortirolo and Stelvio, but also climbs like Gavia, Fedaia (when not used as a MTF), Giau and Colle San Carlo should be excellent for more action than only on the last 5-10 kms. Using 1-2 of these each year shoudn't be a to big of a problem.

And if they did something with the road on Fauniera and Sampeyre, you would have even more climbs of this type.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
The route is good. I think it needed 10-20 extra FLAT TT kilometers, as the last TT is actually beneficial for the climbers, but I can live with that.
However, a lot depends on the usual Giro changes and weather. If the winter is heavy and there is still snow in the Dolomites and Switzerland over 2000 metres, then the route will be significantly worse. Unless they come up with a decent plan B. Which is unlikely.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I feel very conflicted about this one.

Positives:
  • Three stages that would be the undisputed queen stage in a Tour or Vuelta, and all of them are solid to very good designs
  • Very cool Zoldo Alto stage
  • Some nice mid-mountain stages
  • A decent amount of TT to balance it
  • No horrible misuses of available terrain like this year's Fedaia, Aprica and Genoa stages. Or Mégève at the Tour. Or like five stages at the past Vuelta. Or... well, you get the point - it's way more common than it should be.
Negatives:
  • Lussari MTT as the final GC day
  • Pacing, both in terms of it being backloaded (a better MTF than Campo Imperatore would have helped a lot) and in terms of groups of stages being ordered poorly (mainly when there's a TT)
  • All the big mountain stages are MTFs
  • Fairly high on the sprint opportunities
  • Less related to sporting aspects, but flying down to Rome for no reason. Cycling is never going to be the most climate-friendly sport but that's no excuse to increase your carbon footprint in a way that pointless - to the contrary, even.
Overall, 7/10, which I think is higher than I gave any route in 2021 or 2022. Based on what we know about the Tour and Vuelta so far, 2023 looks to be an above average year for GT route design in general, especially compared to this year.
The Giro is usually top heavy in the last week. Campo Imperatore will be awesome, better than Blockhaus or Terminillo. Carbon footprint? As if an extra few hundred going to Rome matters against the millions who arrive via air annually. Cycling can't change the world, but as a movement globally is at least less time in the macchina. Roma is Roma, and how many times has there been a long distance to get to Paris at the end the Tour? Would you rather the big mountain stages finish after the descent? The only thing I agree with Is Lussati on the penultimate day as it could produce lame racing on Tre Cime di Lavaredo.
 
I will give 7,5/10. A few too many transitions stages that could end up rather boring sprint stages, but I love the mountains this year and the 3 time trials, especially early in the race. That said, its STILL a climbers course (which lets be honest, the Giro should be).
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
7.5/10. How can I post the vote?

Good:
  • Two queen stages.
  • Some proper very hard climbs.
  • Minimize flat stages.
  • Action before the third week is assured.
  • Amount of TTs kilometers are good.
Bad:
  • Putting that MTT after the queen stage is a killer. Either a killer of the queen or a killer of the riders who will need to go to the Hospital for recuperation.
  • Third week is very loaded. I hope it doesn't backfires like sometimes happens.
Based on this should be an 8. Lol.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
7/10.

Good
  • I can't ignore them picking my meme wish.
  • I'm probably going soft
  • They way exceeded my very low expectations
  • I'm desensitized to backloaded pacing
  • Some very, very hard stages
  • Lago Laceno is better than Etna
  • Some good medium mountain shenanigans
Bad
-Pacing pacing pacing, MTT last
-Too many possible sprints
-Every mountain stage being a MTF
-I don't love the Bondone stage tbh.
-If stage 21 is a parade, stage 17 does not need to be a flatburger
 
Voted 6.
I like the first 8 stages as a whole, but I suspect the stage 9 itt will have a negative impact on the Fossombrone stage. I woud gave liked a gard medium mountain stage between Gran Sasso and Fossombrone, placing the itt on stage 10. The Bergamo stage could be a little bit harder and there are too many similar high mountain stages. And mtt´s should be abolished.
Overall, for a giro, it´s not really inspiring.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS