Rate the Giro d'Italia 2017 route

Rate the route of the 100th Giro

  • 10

    Votes: 1 1.4%
  • 9

    Votes: 10 14.1%
  • 8

    Votes: 12 16.9%
  • 7

    Votes: 20 28.2%
  • 6

    Votes: 9 12.7%
  • 5

    Votes: 9 12.7%
  • 4

    Votes: 5 7.0%
  • 3

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • 2

    Votes: 2 2.8%
  • 1

    Votes: 1 1.4%

  • Total voters
    71
  • Poll closed .
At least there's over 65km of ITT and they are relatively flat. A lot of good things and some not so good things. I had hoped for more, and I will score it later when I have calmed down and gotten a better overview.
 
Aight.

The good
- Few flat stages in the first week having a tricky, rolling finish
- 2 TT's
- No TTT
- Frontloading of some MTF's, I actually like not going all the way on Blockhaus.
- I don't mind Blockhaus being a one climb stage. It's literally the perfect climb to do it, and this early in the Giro, nothing more will happen if you put more in front of it. Could've put a cat 2 or a few cat 3's in front tho.
- I like the Bormio stage. Slightly annoyed by which sides of the climbs they use, but it should be a very good stage, and I don't expect moves on the middle climb anyway. Actually more likely with Stelvio in the middle.
- Bagno di Romagna stage. Very good medium mountain stage
- Etna early.


The bad
- There's only one good medium mountain stage
- No sterrato stage
- TT length. Could be 20 and 10km longer.
- Oropa
- Piancavallo
- Bergamo, by all rights this should a spot to make a good medium mountain stage.
- Canizei. I remember there was a good stage to Val di Fassa once. Absolutely no need for a *** interemediate stage like that.
- Ortizei. Why. The. Hell. Would. Anyone. Do. That. That stage needs to shat on, ritually burned, struck by lighting and a few other things I should not be mentioning
- Asiago, *** it big time.

The ugly.
- It looks too much like they tried to be inspired by the Tour de France. Stage design is super random, and very lazy. They're visiting a lot of good places, there's a few decent stages as well, but when they get the ball in front of an open goal they don't even try to shoot it. They'd only have to make minor obvious changes, to make everything so much better, without changing finishing places. This route had possibility of creating carnage from way out, multiple times, and they're actively sabotaging that. This is Il Centesimo. No worry about making it too hard, too difficult, or too epic. The solutions for making this route epic are there, they're simple, and almost every stage has already seen better designs in the rumors alone, without changing start-finishing places. This route is mediocre at best, and it's not because there were limited opportunities, it's because they didn't want to make it better. That's *** inexcusable.
- Fedaia (FEDAIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

As for the rating, this is still about 26 times better than the Tour route, but 26 times 0.2 is nothing to be proud of. They have more than a century of Giro d'Italia to celebrate, and if they want to celebrate the many peoples favourite race by ignoring everything that makes it beautiful, then they absolutely *** nailed it. Winner winner chicken dinner
 
Oct 1, 2016
203
0
0
Seems designed for Froome.
To many isolated mtf (like in the vuelta).
Hills around Tortona are ignored.
The Bagno stage could have been much better.
Strange last week but the stages of Ortisei and Asiago will be good because the bad TTists will have to attack.
Piancavallo stage horrible.
Mortirolo-Umbrail-Stelvio is a monster.
Overall better than the tour.
 
I actually want to give this route something lower than 5 but I don't think it really deserves it, it's just that I'm angry because of a few simply stupid decisions they made.

+a very early, hard mtf which is something very unique. The location is also great.
+Another very hard mtf at the end of the first weekend which makes sure that the riders must have a good shape over 3 weeks.
+A lot of TT'ing. Almost 70 kilometers. I guess we now know which GT Dumoulin will target next year.
+Stage 11 is a very good medium mountain stage.
+The last week is hard but not incredibly hard. Again this will make it a bit less backloaded

~I still think the start in Sardinia is decent. Stages 1 and 2 don't look so great on paper but I think they will be quite entertaining since there will be good battles for the leaders jersey.
~Stages 6 and 8 both have a decent finish and might be entertaining, but I just expected both to be better.
~Stage 16 is good. It's longer than 200 km and has 3 HC climbs, two of them real monsters and on really high altitude. The thing is though that although this is a good stage, it could have been so much better. Why did they use the shittiest side of the Mortirolo?, why don't they use any climbs before the Mortirolo and why is the Stelvio put before the Umbrail?
~The same counts for stage 18. Thats actually a super tough stage with 4 1st category and one 3rd category climb on a very short distance, but they could have made it way better. And ofc the placement of this stage will probably kill any action.

-Why are there no climbs before the Blockhaus and why do they finish so low? It's still a hard climb but the actual Blockhaus is 400 meters higher.
-Two Po valley stages
-I would understand that there are no climbs before Oropa if the stage would be as long as rumored, but it's only 130 km long, so why not at least one pass before it?
-WTF did they do with the Lombardia stage? This stage design is just plain stupid.
-And another mtf with only one serious climb on stage 19.
-Stage 20...I don't know what to say about this. This stage is stupid on so many levels. Why no climbs before the Grappa? Why approaching the Grappa from the north? And if it has to be from the north, why the easier northern side?
-Way too few historic stage finishes. Of all dolomites skiing stations, why Ortisei? Of all mtf's in Friul why exactly Piancavallo? And why does the 20th stage end in Asiago? The only really good choices are IMO Etna, Blockhaus (although it's not really Blockhaus), Oropa (I don't like the climb but it makes sense since this climb has a rich cycling history) and Bormio. Why are the complete Eastern Alps missing? Where are climbs like Fedaia? Why is there no sterrato in the f****** 100th Giro?

Red Rick basically summed it up. The problem isn't that the false towns are paying to host the stages, the problem is that the organizers didn't know how to make a good stage to these towns. In many cases there are completely obvious options how to make the stage better, hell, sometimes the most obvious option even would have been better than the actual stage, but still the organizers did something different. I just don't understand it.
 
Oct 1, 2016
203
0
0
Positive aspects.
Until the first TT perfect route with early etna and blockhaus plus tricky stages like Terme Luigiane and Peschici.
Decent amount of TT
Bergamo stage will be funny
Bormio stage
Canazei stage for me is a fair good intermediate stage, possibly last resort for sprinters or even gc battle
Ortisei seems strange but is very good for me: Pordoi, Valparola, Gardenain 85 km then a very long descent with a hill in the middle and finally an easy climb to Ortisei (137 km long). This is the day of the attackers. For me the race will explode already on the pordoi.
Monte Grappa stage will also be spectacular.

Oropa and Piancavallo are real abortion
 
It's a good route for Pinot. Too many uphill/MTFs for my taste but overall it's ok. Bormio and Etna stages are ++. The amount of TT is decent

Still annoyed by people who endlessly bash the Tour while it has nothing to do with this route.
 
Gave it 6, but I think it deserves no more than a 5 honestly.

It will still be the best designed GT. Bormio-stage should be a monster, I think the Dolomite-stage has the potential to be carnage. Monte Grappa sucks, so does Oropa, but decent amount of TT-ing. I had hoped for better intermediate stages like in 2015, as it stands now, only 1 looks reaaly interesting.
 
Apr 7, 2011
4,148
0
0
If you have afinal TT on the last day, why not make it a meaningful one?
28km won't change ***. Should ahve been 50
 
Mar 13, 2016
25
0
0
I gave it a 5.

+ I like the Sardegna-part: the first stage has options for a lot of riders; the second stage should see a select group sprinting for the win; the third stage is one for the sprinters. A good way to start a Grand Tour, in my opinion.
+ Etna on stage four, that's great.
+ Blockhaus being the second hard MTF within nine stages, awesome.
+ The halfway Montefalco-time trial should be longer, but I think that this is a perfect time trial halfway.
+ I think stage 6 and stage 8 are rather nice stages for that point in the race.

- Messina stage: after a hard first MTF (Etna), a pretty hard hilly stage should follow.
- Actually, I don't really like the Bagno di Romagna stage. For me, a medium mountain stage should always provide incentives to attack early, to create chaos. Where could this happen in that stage? I don't see it.
- Stage 12 and stage 13: two (almost) totally flat stages back-to-back at this point of the race.... :(
- Oropa: woohoo, let's attack in the last 2 km's!
- Canazei, Piancavallo, Asiago: that could all have been so, so, so much better.

? Bergamo: of course, could/should have been much better, but could make for an interesting final.
? Stelvio/Bormio-stage: I don't know... At least, it's long, but if they really wanted to have the Stelvio-Umbrail combination, why not have Gavio before it? That would make for a much harder stage, not longer, and more high altitude climbs!
? I don't like stage 18, but it could turn out to be good, because it's short and the last half of the stage is pretty fast (after Gardena), so Gardena could create some action...
? I don't know yet how to call this Giro: backloaded or frontloaded...?
 
Oct 1, 2016
203
0
0
Gigs_98 said:
~Stage 16 is good. It's longer than 200 km and has 3 HC climbs, two of them real monsters and on really high altitude. The thing is though that although this is a good stage, it could have been so much better. Why did they use the shittiest side of the Mortirolo?, why don't they use any climbs before the Mortirolo and why is the Stelvio put before the Umbrail?


-Why are there no climbs before the Blockhaus and why do they finish so low? It's still a hard climb but the actual Blockhaus is 400 meters higher.

-WTF did they do with the Lombardia stage? This stage design is just plain stupid.
There are 3 ways to arrive from the Northern Bergamo valleys to the valtellina (where the stelvio is located). Easy side Mortirolo, easy side Aprica, hard side Gavia. With the Gavia it would've been too long from Rovetta. Aprica is a joke and take a longer route. It would be impossible to insert the hard Mortirolo in this stage. The esy side is a good prelude. For the stelvio sides, my only guess is that they decided to put the hardest climb as penultimate in order to encourage the attackers (this year worked). Stage 16 remains harder than every stage at the tour. more than 220 km with 2 passages over 2600 will be felt.

For the blockhaus. This is also a good stage because before the blockhaus you can only put the passo lanciano but no one will move there because is much easier. This is the perfect isolated final climb stage (also because it comes early in the race). The top of the blockhaus was never reached for logistical problems also when it was planed.

Miragolo-Selvino-Bergamo Alta can set an interesting battle if the bigs will move on the Miragolo.
I agree with you for the rest. Especially with the randomness they designed the route.

Anyway for me this route has only 2 big problems: Oropa, Piancavallo are ridicoulous vuelta like stages, Vegni should be fired for them only. Plus Tortona could have been a hilly stage, there could've been some sterrato and the last stage could be better.
 
Oct 1, 2016
203
0
0
It's pity because Vegni has always designed interesting and equilibrated routes.
In my opinion they want to attract froome. Or they want to copy the tour, I don't know.
 
Stage 20 really makes me sad. It took me about 5 minutes to make this stage:

Okay, some of you might say this would be too hard because it would kill the action on the stages before, but you can simply not use the first climb. If that is still too hard for your liking, you can also ignore the 2nd climb. (you could also use this climb instead of the 2nd climb.
Even if you ignore the first two climbs of the stage, the stage would still be way better than the real stage, because here the final climb is at least really difficult. And why don't they use it? I have no idea. The giro organizers basically decided to ride around the whole Monte Grappa just to climb the easiest side of it. I don't find one single reason why that would make sense and I'd be surprised if anyone of you do.
 
EroicaStradeBianche said:
Gigs_98 said:
~Stage 16 is good. It's longer than 200 km and has 3 HC climbs, two of them real monsters and on really high altitude. The thing is though that although this is a good stage, it could have been so much better. Why did they use the shittiest side of the Mortirolo?, why don't they use any climbs before the Mortirolo and why is the Stelvio put before the Umbrail?


-Why are there no climbs before the Blockhaus and why do they finish so low? It's still a hard climb but the actual Blockhaus is 400 meters higher.

-WTF did they do with the Lombardia stage? This stage design is just plain stupid.
There are 3 ways to arrive from the Northern Bergamo valleys to the valtellina (where the stelvio is located). Easy side Mortirolo, easy side Aprica, hard side Gavia. With the Gavia it would've been too long from Rovetta. Aprica is a joke and take a longer route. It would be impossible to insert the hard Mortirolo in this stage. The esy side is a good prelude. For the stelvio sides, my only guess is that they decided to put the hardest climb as penultimate in order to encourage the attackers (this year worked). Stage 16 remains harder than every stage at the tour. more than 220 km with 2 passages over 2600 will be felt.

For the blockhaus. This is also a good stage because before the blockhaus you can only put the passo lanciano but no one will move there because is much easier. This is the perfect isolated final climb stage (also because it comes early in the race). The top of the blockhaus was never reached for logistical problems also when it was planed.

Miragolo-Selvino-Bergamo Alta can set an interesting battle if the bigs will move on the Miragolo.
I agree with you for the rest. Especially with the randomness they designed the route.

Anyway for me this route has only 2 big problems: Oropa, Piancavallo are ridicoulous vuelta like stages, Vegni should be fired for them only. Plus Tortona could have been a hilly stage, there could've been some sterrato and the last stage could be better.
1.) There is a possibility to have a super steep ramp on the eastern side of the Mortirolo. That still doesn't make it as difficult as the western sides but at least difficult. They also could have climbed the easy Aprica side and then the Mortirolo like in 2012.

2.) Yeah, nobody would move on the Lanciano, you are right. But the thing about climbs like these is that they make the race harder and therefore the next climb too. Look at the carnage in stage 14 of this years giro? Do you think the Valparola could cause such huge time gaps if it was the only climb of the day?

3.) Ofc it could be a good battle if they move on Miragolo but I just don't think they will. It's extremely far from the finish, big parts of the remaining stage are flat and the climb isn't all that difficult. Anyway the reason why I complained about that stage is because they didn't put any other climbs before it. They could have made it a very long medium mountain stage and use climbs like Sormano, Ghisallo or Valcava earlier in the stage. Again there probably wouldn't have been any moves on these climbs but the stage would at least be hard.
 
EroicaStradeBianche said:
It's pity because Vegni has always designed interesting and equilibrated routes.
2015 didn't have much in the way of proper high mountain stages, apart from the (one) queen stage. Without Astana that Giro would have been a bore, IMO. This is miles better, as flawed as it is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY