• The Cycling News forum is looking to add some volunteer moderators with Red Rick's recent retirement. If you're interested in helping keep our discussions on track, send a direct message to @SHaines here on the forum, or use the Contact Us form to message the Community Team.

    In the meanwhile, please use the Report option if you see a post that doesn't fit within the forum rules.

    Thanks!

Rate the Giro d'Italia 2017 route

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

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 .
OlavEH said:
First I voted 7, but now I've reconsidered and give the route a 6/10.

The most negative points are the last weekend which is really bad in Giro standards, the lack longer medium mountain stages and the terrible Oropa stage.

A reversal of the last week starting with Piancavallo, continuing through the Dolomites and having Bormio, Bergamo and Milano as the last three stages would have been much better. This includes some changes to the Dolomite stage and the Asiago/Monte Grappa stage.

And of course they should have done something different than the Oropa stage. That stage is awful!

The problem with Oropa stage is if you has a lot of that as in la Vuelta, but to have one is good, there must be different kind of stages in a GT.

The most interesting stages last years in la Vuelta were Fuete De, Morcuera and Formigal,and some people critized them.

This route with people as Dumoulin, Mollema, nibali, Uran , chaves and Lada nis perfect to see a great battle. The moutais is hard, more tha i leTour or la Vuelta, with a super stage, but no so super hard to count for sure Dumouli is going to do crack with a decet team. climbers has to attack to drop him
 
Taxus4a said:
The problem with Oropa stage is if you has a lot of that as in la Vuelta, but to have one is good, there must be different kind of stages in a GT.

The most interesting stages last years in la Vuelta were Fuete De, Morcuera and Formigal,and some people critized them.

This route with people as Dumoulin, Mollema, nibali, Uran , chaves and Lada nis perfect to see a great battle. The moutais is hard, more tha i leTour or la Vuelta, with a super stage, but no so super hard to count for sure Dumouli is going to do crack with a decet team. climbers has to attack to drop him

Both Blockhaus and Piancavallo are the same type of stages, and both climbs are MUCH begger than Oropa. It would been much better with a 220-230 km medium mountain stage and a downhill finish than the Oropa stage. If they had done that and done something other than the Asiago stage, I would rated the route as an 8 instead of 6.
 
OlavEH said:
Taxus4a said:
The problem with Oropa stage is if you has a lot of that as in la Vuelta, but to have one is good, there must be different kind of stages in a GT.

The most interesting stages last years in la Vuelta were Fuete De, Morcuera and Formigal,and some people critized them.

This route with people as Dumoulin, Mollema, nibali, Uran , chaves and Lada nis perfect to see a great battle. The moutais is hard, more tha i leTour or la Vuelta, with a super stage, but no so super hard to count for sure Dumouli is going to do crack with a decet team. climbers has to attack to drop him

Both Blockhaus and Piancavallo are the same type of stages, and both climbs are MUCH begger than Oropa. It would been much better with a 220-230 km medium mountain stage and a downhill finish than the Oropa stage. If they had done that and done something other than the Asiago stage, I would rated the route as an 8 instead of 6.

ot 6he same stage. Bloschaus is a great climb, log ad hard ad it is ormal to be aloe. Piacavalo is a quite log stage with some climbs before.

You can cosider this as monoclimb stages finishing at the top, but 3 of 21 it is not too much as they have variability. if you put a 6 to this parcours you have to put a 3 to la Vuelta and we watched a good race, wich is not possible to watch with a 3 rated route (anyway for me is ot more tha a 5-6). This Giro deserves a hight rate.
 
I think I partially agree with OlavEH about the Oropa stage. They already have 1 or 2 like that. The Oropa stage could have been with several other medium climbs. I wouldn't want to change the Piancavallo stage because if you made it harder then the last week could become an attrition race. And we don't want that. We want to make it a little easier so that the riders feel with more power to attack. No point in making it so hard that everyone is wasted on the last mountain.
 
Aug 21, 2015
380
0
0
Visit site
I gave it a 7 and it is an alright route overall. If they made a couple changes in the final week though I think I would have given it a 9, it could have been better. Like the first week a lot though and while I don't like the sides of the climbs being used in stage 16, it is still a very tough stage, tougher than anything the Tour has put out in a while
 
Aug 6, 2015
4,139
2
0
Visit site
What a terrible route this giro is. First week is very good although is missing a really hard medium mountain stage. second week starts very well with the time trial but all the next stages are really crap, i swear to god that i never see a second week of a gt so bad like this year. Third week is also bad, after the rest day we have a great stage, a long hard stage (a true 90 mountain stage). Everything else is terrible, i continue to not know wtf is stage 17, they really think that anything will happen in this stage? This should be short and explosive from the beginning. i also like the final time trial, i'm sick of stages that is a red carpet for the winner
 
Re:

Escarabajo said:
I think I partially agree with OlavEH about the Oropa stage. They already have 1 or 2 like that. The Oropa stage could have been with several other medium climbs. I wouldn't want to change the Piancavallo stage because if you made it harder then the last week could become an attrition race. And we don't want that. We want to make it a little easier so that the riders feel with more power to attack. No point in making it so hard that everyone is wasted on the last mountain.

The more that I think about the route the better it seems. Good points have been made about the sides of the Mortirolo and Grappa being the ones that were originally used, so this makes sense; and where the Mortirolo is placed on stage 16 mean that a 10km at 8% climb is still tough enough, considering the two high altitude monsters to follow. Perhaps they could have also ascended a tougher side of the Mortirolo though on stage 15 or 17?

Stage 15 is the main disappointment of the route for me. Coming on the day before the second rest day, this is the perfect opportunity for a multiple mountain stage rather than a Vueltaesque one. I am also surprised that there is so much need to always pay tribute to Pantani. Great rider for sure, but he did only win one Giro. I mean where are all the annual tributes to Basso? :D

Week 1 is pretty good, but only because of the MTF's on stages 4 and 9. There seem to be more missed opportunities here than in any other week of the route. A prologue was of course a possibility, but more so than that, where is the sterrato? This is the 100th Giro right? And where is the genuinely intriguing, lengthy medium mountain stage??

At least most of the stages are placed reasonably well. The first ITT is reasonably long, and perfectly placed after the first rest stage. For example if this was bought forward one day (and same with Blockhaus) then the racing on the MTF would be severely compromised due to the next day ITT. So having these either side of a rest day is perfect.

The same could be said for stage 15, but I think that the end of the second week should have more of a serious sorting out than the end of the first week.

The second week also has a nice enough looking hilly stage, though at 160 kms it's disappointingly short. Still, that's three stages out of six which might see some GC action.

Week 3 might turn out to be great. A lot depends on the GC standings and who needs to gain time. I feel like a lot of faith is being placed on stage 18 here, and I'm hopeful for an epic stage. Many are complaining about the disappointing stage 20, but making a super hard stage there could be a little pointless anyway, given the final ITT the next day. I like an ITT to conclude matters, but they can compromise racing on the day prior. Also the apparent weakness of stage 20 should encourage great racing on stage 18 in the dolomites, also considering that stage 19 is not a brute (though a hard final climb). It just seems really set up for fireworks on stage 18, so if we don't get them then the Giro might be a bit of a fail. It's an intriguing design, with the vast majority of the second half of the stage involving descending, but with still JUST enough climbing to not discourage early attacks. It's a short stage too, following on from two long ones.

Anyway, if you made all of the last six stages 100% GC focused then it wouldn't work. This might not work either, but I think I can see what they are trying to do here.

EDIT: Just had another look at the route now; didn't realise that Oropa MTF is stage 14, with the hilly stage to Bergamo on stage 15. I'm not sure of what to make of either of that. One of these stages probably should have been much harder/longer.
 
I agree about the overkill on the Pantani veneration now. The guy is still beloved and a huge icon in Italian cycling, sure, but we already did Oropa in tribute to him just a couple of years ago, Carpegna since then, and every year it seems there's a stage in tribute to him. A stage start in Cesena would be fine at this point, you know? Since that's all they're giving Gino freaking Bartali.

If the route otherwise included more tributes to icons of the sport - a stage start around Novi Ligure for Girardengo and Coppi, somewhere around Cittiglio and Varese for Binda and Ganna, a second attempt at cloning the legendary Coppi stage from Cuneo to Pinerolo even if they now stopped at Sestrières, passing through Mugello for Nencini, putting the Rionero Sannitico and Roccaraso in the Blockhaus stage even if completely ceremonial and miles from the finish, and so on - then having the Pantani tribute would fit in perfectly. As it is, it's a route which seemingly wilfully ignores a lot of the race's tradition and stars, so to have one of the only tributes be to somebody who already had the race honour him multiple times recently seems a bit of a strange call.

They also use neither the most commonly-used (San Marino) nor the first (Terminillo) mountaintop finish in the race - although I do appreciate that they wanted to use Terminillo but circumstances prevented it.

And I'm actually somebody who would like to maximise the tributes to the sport's past in its present - to this day I wish the Vuelta would one time give Chava the treatment the Giro gives Pantani. My Race Design Challenge Giro was almost all about linking together hometowns of famous riders and legendary stages. One of my biggest gripes about the USAPCC was the lack of the Tour of the Moon or the Morgul-Bismarck loop.
 
Re:

Libertine Seguros said:
If the route otherwise included more tributes to icons of the sport - a stage start around Novi Ligure for Girardengo and Coppi
They paid a tribute to Coppi, but in the other way. He was born in Castellania and died in Tortona. I need to admit the Pantani craze is too much for me. I never liked the guy in the first place and his rides were funny in a bad way (Landis, Ricco, Sella, Armstrong, Basso etc.).
 
I am bit dissapointed about this route,
I am missing some serious medium mountains in Calabria, Abruzzo or Toscana, too many isolated MTF´s which I really do not like
No serious stage in Dolomites, Fedaia, Giau e.g.
I expected somethnik like Fauniera or Sampeyre, or at least Finestre as ususal there was always lot of fun in Piemonte
Bormio stage should be epic if there will not be snow and -5 degrees as in 2013 :)
I gave it 4 beacuse I have bigger expectatgions from Giro route (especially 100th year) then from Tour which also this year is not as good as last year
 
Re:

RattaKuningas said:
I actually like this route. 9/10

Bump.

For those of us who need something to keep us alive until Eshnar's official and in-depth analysis :D

I am hopeful that the route can work out well, although am wondering more if Froome has made the right choice in skipping it. Surely this was his best - and possibly even final - chance to win the Giro, with a good amount of flat ITT (by today's standards), and Etna/Blockhaus just scream PSM!

It may sound weird, but I think that this years Tour route could make it more unpredictable.