Giro d'Italia Rate the 2026 Giro d'Italia route

[The fridge in the blue trees]

Best parcours for a while. It's not overly backloaded. as has been the case in the last years.
Aosta is very short, prefer it longer, but by having nothing at all the next day, there should be action. With Pila being long probably only will really take off on the final climb, but that's good enough. Differences will be made, even if it's short, they will have quite a few climbs in the legs when they hit Pila.
Cari at Junior level distance, some tiny hills early, but again, due to the placement, nothing the next day again we can expect things happening in the final climb. Then the Giau stage, maybe Giau a bit far from the finish, maybe the steepness of the final climb a bit too inviting to wait, but normally on the Giau stuff happens almost automatically. And the final climb being short helps early attacks, waiting for that might be too late. And while Piancavallo of course is the next day, it's not somehting like Finestre or Fedaia or the stupid MTT a few years back that castrates the stage before it, so expect the Giau stage to deliver too finally. The placement of the stages is very good, makes for some weird transfers, and ok, 2 rather pointless stages between Cari and Alleghe, sprints in the first week maybe, here it will just be 2 escape stages... but generally the placement is good. Blockhaus early, ok, could be even earlier IMO, but early enough, long, not too much before, but fits. Late for an early climb, but hard for an early climb too. Nice. Less convinced by Corno alle Scale, but ok, just one more mountain top arrival but here probably minimal differences.
Less altitude meters than in the past, but by placing the climbs in much better places than usual lately, the altitude meters are used more effectively than lately. 2023, the tre Cime stage, where very predictably everything was neutralized by a) the final climb and b) the MTT the next day. Won't happen here. I think it's a good parcours,

 

[Berniece]

POV: you didn't watch the 2011 Giro.

Also, so long as Vingegaard is still a level above everyone not named Pogacar, the GC battle is going to be bad no matter what the route is if he starts. So there's little point in optimising for that scenario, and insofar as there is a point it's an argument for cutting down on the quantity of mountain stages, not the quality.

Finally, if Vingegaard starts and is not that good by his standards, then a soft route will actively hamper the race, as proven by the Vuelta this year.

I believe the racers make the race anyway, and this course invites you to race. Instead of doing a sky train and Vingegaard goes when he wants

 

[hrotha]

Never ceases to amaze me that people come to the "rate the route" thread to say the route doesn't matter

 

[Sciatic]

Never ceases to amaze me that people come to the "rate the route" thread to say the route doesn't matter

Well, there's not much else to talk about this time of year . . .

 

[aphronesis]

Never ceases to amaze me that people come to the "rate the route" thread to say the route doesn't matter

Maybe the criteria for “matter” differ also. There’s some talk about ‘11 also that puts a double in perspective. But that was a different moment. Like post cold war.

 

[rghysens]

I gave it a 5/10 the same as in the Tour but for different reasons.

This Giro actually manages to find a decent balance between TT kilometers and climbing but only because its one of the easiest Giro routes that I remember.

I like that we have a proper long TT and the Blockhaus stage could give us surprising results with such a long distance. Its also not as backloaded as this year's with a good 'Italian first week' and I applaud the return of Giau.

Now on to the negatives, the Bulgarian stages are disappointing, only stage 2 could be remotely interesting so they could have made one of them a short TT. The second and third week are too easy, stages 16 and 17 are very disappointing and I wish there was another mountain stage on the second week.

One 45 minute long itt doesn't balance out 2h45' (or thereabouts) of mtf's. And it's also not a proper long tt.

 

[Red Rick]

One 45 minute long itt doesn't balance out 2h45' (or thereabouts) of mtf's. And it's also not a proper long tt.

Too bad 40k is the longest you get in the 2020s.

I honestly don't get the obsession with TTs when they're the pretty low variance stages and we keep getting slapped with at least 5 cheecks mountain stages every GT.

 

[OlavEH]

I believe the racers make the race anyway, and this course invites you to race. Instead of doing a sky train and Vingegaard goes when he wants

Nah, there are some type of stages that always deliver. Especially for high mountain stages. Also some medium mountain stages over the years were highly praised in advanced and actually delivered. Like Sappada 2018 and Torino 2022. I dont see neither in the next year's version. That doesn't mean we cant have thrilling stages, but the likelihood seems a bit less when you dont include these kind of stages.

 

[rghysens]

Too bad 40k is the longest you get in the 2020s.

I honestly don't get the obsession with TTs when they're the pretty low variance stages and we keep getting slapped with at least 5 cheecks mountain stages every GT.

Are mountain stages that more entertaining?
The thing for me is that a whole bunch of riders are denied a chance of victory or at least a telling result. It's not only in gt's that tt's have almost disappeared. Many stage races traditionally had a tt, some even two, now the only thing that seems to matter are (long or punchy) climbs, leading to, well, low variance results.

 

[Red Rick]

Are mountain stages that more entertaining?

Yes.

And if riders are denied a result entirely by the absence of a TT where they would get a big result with a TT, then the route is probably horrendous to begin with.

 

[YavorD]

Never ceases to amaze me that people come to the "rate the route" thread to say the route doesn't matter

Well, some people may rate the route based on purely or mostly scenic point of view.

 

[pman]

7- routes don’t exist in vacuums- you could make this 65000 meters of climbing and you’d get a substandard field. This is a route that understands the realities of a May grand tour- namely that it has to be exciting enough to hook the fans and easy enough to attract a few big names that think they’ll recover in time for the Tour.

Honestly I like the route more than the Tour route and that race has no excuse. It could have 65000 meters of climbing and 80 k worth of time trials and the big names would still show up. Not so with this race.

I think this Giro is actually a balanced route. Some proper sprint stages, yes, they belong on a grand tour, some good hill stages, an actual flat time trial that could make a difference in the race, a proper queen stage and pacing that won’t leave everyone waiting for stage 20. Speaking of stage 20, I thinks it’s a clever design. Attack and bridge the gap if you can to make real time but not too hard to weaken racing the day/ week before. I’d love a stage 21 time trial and one more really tough mountain day to rival the Queen stage but overall, I like the route given the world the Giro lives in. I hope it attracts Remco and Jonas plus some great sprinters.