Rate the 2024 Tour de France Route

Page 3 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.

Rate the 2024 Tour de France Route


  • Total voters
    82
I must have missed the part where half the skills of cobbles equates to zero skills on the gravel.

I also must have missed the part where double the punctures on the gravel means there are no punctures on the cobbles.
The point is that Strade was decided by skill and Roubaix by a puncture, so the claim about the relative importance of skills and luck is not well supported by our most recent evidence.

Obviously n=2 is not a huge sample size, but let's not pretend the initial claim had any kind of data backing it up either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Just one final point about the "gravel" (sounds like we're getting into a therapy session .. anyway), imagine you've spent 6 months training for the race, and not eating your favourite grub, and the organizers say,"you can race on tarmac, or you can race on tarmac with tacks thrown onto the course at random places?" What would you prefer?
If it was a one day race on a Wednesday in some rural part of France, you'd say I'd skip it but as it's the biggest race of the year and your career might well depend on doing well, then you're scr!wed.
 
The very good:
The opening weekend

The good:
Individually, the stages to Le Lioran, Pla d´Adet, Superdévoluy, Isola200 and Col de la Couillole are good, but the last two are making the course as a whole too backloaded

The bad:
6 (7if you count Troyes) flat stages out of 9 between stage 5 and 13 (yeah, I know, French geography,....)
Very low amount of (flat) itt.
Quite backloaded


Still, for the 2nd year in a row I like the presented Tour course more than the Giro course. But that has more to do with the Giro course being uninspirational.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
Just one final point about the "gravel" (sounds like we're getting into a therapy session .. anyway), imagine you've spent 6 months training for the race, and not eating your favourite grub, and the organizers say,"you can race on tarmac, or you can race on tarmac with tacks thrown onto the course at random places?" What would you prefer?
If it was a one day race on a Wednesday in some rural part of France, you'd say I'd skip it but as it's the biggest race of the year and your career might well depend on doing well, then you're scr!wed.
Go to another race then.
 
The very good:
The opening weekend

The good:
Individually, the stages to Le Lioran, Pla d´Adet, Superdévoluy, Isola200 and Col de la Couillole are good, but the last two are making the course as a whole too backloaded

The bad:
6 (7if you count Troyes) flat stages out of 9 between stage 5 and 13 (yeah, I know, French geography,....)
Very low amount of (flat) itt.
Quite backloaded


Still, for the 2nd year in a row I like the presented Tour course more than the Giro course. But that has more to do with the Giro course being uninspirational.
The Giro route is uninspiring, but I really don't see at all how the Tour route is any better. It has all the problems of the Giro route except much worse.
 
So which of those routes are this one worse than?
Mountains wise it's worse than all of them apart from maybe 2019. Having the extra ITT and the Lorian stage are just about the only good things. Pyrenees stages could be acceptable in a vacuum but the Alps are just so bad it cannot be forgiven.

I also have to have a laugh at the amount of criticism the Giro got last year for backloading only to see this route get a pass from many people when the first realy mountain stage is stage 14. I have to guess it's for the same reasons people thought the Tour this year was great. Pogacar and Vingegaard handholding until the final km is considered great spectacle while everyone else is just a mountain sprinter when they do it.

And I say all this while this is probably the best route Roglic could hope for. If there's any route where he has a shot it's probably this one, and that's a big if. And the route really needs Roglic and god forbid Evenepoel to be somewhat close cause Vingegaard and Pogacar get a lot less aggressive when they can't drop each other and nobody else is close.
 
Mountains wise it's worse than all of them apart from maybe 2019.
I don't buy that. How is it worse than 2015 in that regard?

Isola 2000 > La Toussuire
Couillole > Alpe d'Huez
Pdb = PdB
Pla d'Adet > PSM

And I even more strongly disagree with 2019 having the worst mountain stages of the decade, judged by the route as it was intended.
 
Gave it a 7 and could be an 8. Good hilly and mid mountain stages, good TT length and not pan flat, and I am a fan of the final stage GC action instead of the parade. Mountain stages look decent but many are short and no truly colossal stages or climb combos. However, the average stage length is longer than usual these days and the mountain stages still pack a lot of climbing density so happy about that.

Gravel stage looks significant enough to be good so that’s an added bonus.
 
I don't buy that. How is it worse than 2015 in that regard?
Cauterets should be hyped to the heavens by modern logic, so that cancels out Pla d'Adet being better than unipuerto PSM.

La Toussuire is so much better than any of the 2024 stages. Also the original design of Galibier north-AdH is similar but just better than Vars/Bonette/Isola2000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandisfan
The Giro route is uninspiring, but I really don't see at all how the Tour route is any better. It has all the problems of the Giro route except much worse.
I agree but I think people (rightfully) are taking the riders we expect to come to these races into the equation. Pog and Vingegaard have shown to race aggressively even on courses where people were sceptical that something would happen while the second tier GC guys that will likely go to the Giro have been veeery passive as shown by the last two Giros.
Not many expected action in the Pyrenees last year with two reduced bunch sprints seeming likely but than both were crazy stages. Meanwhile the giro was praised but due to various circumstances turned out to be terrible.
 
I just disagree with the methodology of scoring it on the basis of how it compares to recent editions. If you have 9 Tours that are just 20 100-km flat stages and then one Tour that's all 100-km flat stages except for one mountain stage, that doesn't make Tour #10 a good route.
I take all the improvements I can get.

And regardless of whether or not it's used to score the route, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have where it ranks. Where do you think it ranks?
 
Just one final point about the "gravel" (sounds like we're getting into a therapy session .. anyway), imagine you've spent 6 months training for the race, and not eating your favourite grub, and the organizers say,"you can race on tarmac, or you can race on tarmac with tacks thrown onto the course at random places?" What would you prefer?
If it was a one day race on a Wednesday in some rural part of France, you'd say I'd skip it but as it's the biggest race of the year and your career might well depend on doing well, then you're scr!wed.
That's sport...bad luck can happen. Tough!! If people want the perfect conditions and a GT to just be about ITT & climbing, we may as well just hold it on Zwift.....