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

[Extinction]

Mortirolo is less steep than Zoncolan and Lussari, and it also serves as a point for long range attacks. That doesn't apply to neither a MTT or Zoncolan when it is a MTF. And I also think it is a difference between 10-12 % like Mortirolo (okay, it also has a short steeper section, but most of it is 10-12 %) and the last 5k on Fedaia and 15+ % like Zoncolan and Lussari.

I'm aware Mortirolo isn't as steep, but at the time of its introduction, it was unusually hard (not the side Bugno went up in 1990, but the one Pantani entered the scene with a bang in 1994). The Zoncolan has entered a bit of a mythical status in Italy, because of its extremity, a ploy to show how Italian climbs are harder than French ones. And from this the Angrilu in Spain to publicize why the Tour isn't the only terrible race. It's pure marketing.

 

[Mayomaniac]

I'm aware Mortirolo isn't as steep, but at the time of its introduction, it was unusually hard (not the side Bugno went up in 1990, but the one Pantani entered the scene with a bang in 1994). The Zoncolan has entered a bit of a mythical status in Italy, because of its extremity, a ploy to show how Italian climbs are harder than French ones. And from this the Angrilu in Spain to publicize why the Tour isn't the only terrible race. It's pure marketing.

On the other hand Tre Cime and Mont du Chat were already used in the 70ies, the former already in the late 60ies. Looking at the gearing that they had back then those climbs were in the same league as the Zocolan and similar super steep stuff today.

 

[Red Rick]

Steep climbs overrated IMO. With proper gearing you just get 40 minute all out efforts, it's the 1 hour all out climbs that are scariest, and do most damage if you take a descent and other climbs after it.

 

[Netserk]

On the other hand Tre Cime and Mont du Chat were already used in the 70ies, the former already in the late 60ies. Looking at the gearing that they had back then those climbs were in the same league as the Zocolan and similar super steep stuff today.

Muro di Sormano in the 60s as well.

 

[Salvarani]

Steep climbs overrated IMO. With proper gearing you just get 40 minute all out efforts, it's the 1 hour all out climbs that are scariest, and do most damage if you take a descent and other climbs after it.

Usually not much happens on the super steep climbs either. It is tough get a gap, unless someone just completely cracks. Everyone is scared to attack. Often turns out very anti-climatic.

 

[Red Rick]

Usually not much happens on the super steep climbs either. It is tough get a gap, unless someone just completely cracks. Everyone is scared to attack. Often turns out very anti-climatic.

Yeah people do their own pace much more often these days. But a bad part is that many of the steep ones are steepest near the end. Angliru is an example, it's like in the last few climbs they've just waited for Cuenas les cabres which is like 2km under the top.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Muro di Sormano in the 60s as well.

And the Steilstrecke of the Nürburgring with ramps up to 27% was used in the 1927 WC circuit, when Binda won in front of 3 other Italian riders.

 

[gavia88]

Yep. I agree. Especially in the Vuelta. For the Giro I can't really think of any other climbs than Zoncolan is this category.

agree. However, both Giro and Tour are influenced in a bad way by the Vuelta in focussing more on mountain finishes. Both still instist in real mountain stages (not like the Vuelta __/ ), but with more focus on uphill finishes. The tour normally used to have only 3 or 4, the giro as well. But as reaction on the years in which the vuelta introduced 10 mountain finishes they as well added more MTF to the route. Especially the tour lately used some HC passes as a finish instead of using them as places for long range attacks, like Galibier, Tourmalet, Aubisque, Izoard (and more). Decent hard HC climbs, normally followed by a less steep or long climb. But now as the main difficulty at the end of the stage. Or recently the Col de la Loze, which could easily be used as pass, with a finish in one of the lower ski stations. But no, they used it as the finish, so only the last few kilometers were intresting to watch.

 

[The fridge in the blue trees]

5 for me, don't understand the hype really.

Backloaded, backloaded, super-backloaded.
18 km TT. Lago Laceno, Gran Sasso.. but very little happening on Gran Sasso, everybody within a minute normally. If it was the 2022 group riding up there it would be way more boring than Blockhaus this year. The stage in itself there actually was good, interesting, it's just that we then got to see 3 guys that couldn't get rid of each other (exchange Hindley for Bardet later) until the Fedaia that makes it look "boring" in retrospect.
Second TT, good.
Then finally on stage 13 the first real mountain stage. Actually all 4 mountain stages are nice, but all have problems. Crans Montana, the problem is Crans Montana. Finish in the valley, for all I care in Sierre after 20+km flat, better in Sion of course, and we get a race on the Croix de Coeur, which is an exciting addition. Like this being the first real mountain stage, it will all be Crans Montana, most likely. Of course if a strong time trialer is dropped on the Croix de Coeur, Evenepoel, Almeida, Roglic, Thomas, whoever, then the front might ride. But with the next climb coming, no helpers, might wait... Too scared of giving too much.
Bergamo stage might be interesting, but chances are it's not GC.
Bondone nice, but again will be all on the final climb
Zoldo nice, Cibiana looks very nice too, here something early might happen, some will have to try early, but of course with the first of the 2 finishing climbs being almost 10% waiting for that seems possible too.
Tre Cime, nice, but by having Tre Cime at the end, and the MTT a day after you invite everybody to wait for the final climb again. I really prefer Fedaia-Pordoi (and miss it, it's been decades?) to Giau-Tre Cime. Or Giau downhill finish in Cortina. Or Giau back up the Falzarego and finish on Pordoi from the other side, anyway, make Giau the focal point of the stage. Of course Tre Cime is nice too, but again, it invites the riders to wait.

All these 4 stages are actually nice, but I doubt we will see much early action on the first 2 ones, on the latter 2 more likely, but not sure either.

The MTT is a bit weird, thought an idiocy at first, but on the other hand, why not, even if it sort of castrates Tre Cime a bit.

The big big problem is how backloaded this all is. Very little except the TTs will happen until Crans.

And what makes it worse, is what could have been. Finish in Rome? Do a Monte Petrano queen stage the day before. Go north faster, reach Crans by stage 11, Cut Bondone or Zoldo, otherwise too many mountain stages, head south, one flat stage after the MTT, then either transfer or cross the Po plain and finish with a hilly classic type arrival, then do the Petrano stage that Zomegnan had in 09. Really the only good thing Zomegnan brought to the Giro IMO...

So a 5, too backloaded, the 4 very nice mountain stages in the end in this combination just not that great, and the big miss with Petrano. (Of course another mountain stage directly after Crans, would be better, too, 13-14 mountain, then cut Bondone and do Zoldo-Tre Cime-MTT. But no, has to be extremely backloaded. Stupid.

 

[Andy schleck]

agree. However, both Giro and Tour are influenced in a bad way by the Vuelta in focussing more on mountain finishes. Both still instist in real mountain stages (not like the Vuelta __/ ), but with more focus on uphill finishes. The tour normally used to have only 3 or 4, the giro as well. But as reaction on the years in which the vuelta introduced 10 mountain finishes they as well added more MTF to the route. Especially the tour lately used some HC passes as a finish instead of using them as places for long range attacks, like Galibier, Tourmalet, Aubisque, Izoard (and more). Decent hard HC climbs, normally followed by a less steep or long climb. But now as the main difficulty at the end of the stage. Or recently the Col de la Loze, which could easily be used as pass, with a finish in one of the lower ski stations. But no, they used it as the finish, so only the last few kilometers were intresting to watch.

Col de la loze is a decent mountain finish. Only the last few km were interesting to watch because the riders didn't attack more soon.

 

[gavia88]

Col de la loze is a decent mountain finish. Only the last few km were interesting to watch because the riders didn't attack more soon.

but it could be even more interesting to use it a pass.

 

[YavorD]

Col de la loze is a decent mountain finish. Only the last few km were interesting to watch because the riders didn't attack more soon.

Col de la Loze is a horrible mountain finish, especially for a queen stage. The reason riders didn't attack sooner is exactly the type that climb is. Steepest part is at the top. You'll get similar outcome 8 out of 10 times. Same thing with Zoncolan from Sutrio.

 

[Andy schleck]

Col de la Loze is a horrible mountain finish, especially for a queen stage. The reason riders didn't attack sooner is exactly the type that climb is. Steepest part is at the top. You'll get similar outcome 8 out of 10 times. Same thing with Zoncolan from Sutrio.

The last 8 km of la loze, are all above 7%. It's enough to attack from far.

 

[YavorD]

The last 8 km of la loze, are all above 7%. It's enough to attack from far.

Yeah, but the steepest part (10-11 average) is within the last 4 kilometers. You will rarely see attacks earlier.

 

[Pantani_lives]

When they announced >70 km of ITT I feared they would design a race for Ganna, with no climbs steeper than 7% or above 2000 m, but that's clearly not the case. There are several very tough climbs, and they're not all in the third week.

If Evenepoel goes to this Giro it's no given that he would win it. He would have to take time in the first two weeks and defend in the final week. Stages 19 and 20 are much tougher than anything in the Vuelta, so that would still be a challenge. The question is who Ineos and Jumbo will send as their leader.

This might be a good race if the right riders show up in a good shape, and if no big climbs are cancelled.

 

[Red Rick]

When they announced >70 km of ITT I feared they would design a race for Ganna, with no climbs steeper than 7% or above 2000 m, but that's clearly not the case. There are several very tough climbs, and they're not all in the third week.

If Evenepoel goes to this Giro it's no given that he would win it. He would have to take time in the first two weeks and defend in the final week. Stages 19 and 20 are much tougher than anything in the Vuelta, so that would still be a challenge. The question is who Ineos and Jumbo will send as their leader.

This might be a good race if the right riders show up in a good shape, and if no big climbs are cancelled.

Ganna is just not a climber at all. He got creamed too hard on Montagne de Lure.

 

[hrotha]

It strikes me as a pretty "traditional" (90s-00s) design, with some progressively harder mountain stages in the first two weeks that pale in comparison to everything coming in the finale, where everything will be decided. Backloaded as usual. Two flat ITTs is nice to see but one of them is a glorified prologue and the other is too short. MTTs can be fun but leaving it for the very last day is a bad decision. There's a decent number of stages above 200 km, no true marathon stages but oh well. I dunno, a 6/10 maybe?

 

[Netserk]

Better than 2014
Worse than 2015
Worse than 2016
Better than 2017
Better than 2018
Worse than 2019
Worse than 2020
Better than 2021
Better than 2022

= 6/10

 

[Red Rick]

Better than 2014
Worse than 2015
Worse than 2016
Better than 2017
Better than 2018
Worse than 2019
Worse than 2020
Better than 2021
Better than 2022

= 6/10

I really struggle with what was better about 2019?

 

[Netserk]

I really struggle with what was better about 2019?

Mortirolo (originally with Gavia before, remember) was clearly superior to and better placed than Tre Cime.
Nothing else gets close to Aosta.
Better overall stucture.

 

[Netserk]

But I don't think it's clear cut, so you can convince me otherwise.

 

[YavorD]

I really struggle with what was better about 2019?

I also think that 2019 was better

Pointe di Legno and Courmayeur stages were really good for long range attack. I Lago Serru was a good finishing climb.
Plus, stage 20 was really good as well. We've had a group of 4 on Manghen. If Roglic was in pink we'd have stage for ages.

This route is too have on MTF's.

 

[Extinction]

It strikes me as a pretty "traditional" (90s-00s) design, with some progressively harder mountain stages in the first two weeks that pale in comparison to everything coming in the finale, where everything will be decided. Backloaded as usual. Two flat ITTs is nice to see but one of them is a glorified prologue and the other is too short. MTTs can be fun but leaving it for the very last day is a bad decision. There's a decent number of stages above 200 km, no true marathon stages but oh well. I dunno, a 6/10 maybe?

Backloaded could equally be understood as in crescendo, like opera. I think this is the mentality driving Giro planing, plus the topography and economics of Italy demands that week three is in the big Alpine-Dolomite regione, for which it is in the nature of things the superano takes over the stage.

 

[Netserk]

Backloaded could equally be understood as in crescendo, like opera. I think this is the mentality driving Giro planning, plus the topography and economics of Italy demands that week three is in the big Alpine-Dolomite regione, for which it is in the nature of things the superano takes over the stage.

The Dolomites have just as often been at the end of the second week as in the third week.

 

[Red Rick]

Mortirolo (originally with Gavia before, remember) was clearly superior to and better placed than Tre Cime.
Nothing else gets close to Aosta.
Better overall stucture.

But I don't think it's clear cut, so you can convince me otherwise.

I think the first 2 weeks were a lot worse, so the big mountain stages and maybe the TTs is where 2019 needs to have the advantage. I do think it had slightly better TTs.

But I don't think the Lago Serru stage was particularly well designed and the huge action on that stage wouldn't be repeated in most years. And I don't think stage 19 was particularly great designed, cause *** had to go down on Passo Manghen and it would be nearly impossible to succesfully attack that early.