Rate the TdF 2017 route

[Red Rick]

"You can't break what's already broken"

ASO

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, there's a combination of who's paying and also often a great deal of laziness that leads to a reliance on the same old crutches of climbs and summits that have become iconic. The Maurienne valley has been paying to host the race several times lately, so we've had some very repetitive routes through there, while the Trois Vallées have been much more interested in paying the lower cost of bringing in the Dauphiné, with Courchevel and Méribel both hosting the race lately (though still not going all the way to Mottaret, grrr) - maybe we'll get Val Thorens to complete the trifecta before long? That's one of the benefits of one company running several resorts - however it's also why it's pretty frustrating to keep seeing Arcalis when the Vallnord stations also include Pal and Arinsal plus some others so we could at least get some variety.

The biggest problem has been that some courses trialled in the Dauphiné don't seem to have made the transition to hosting the Tour (Super-Collet in the 2011 Dauphiné would seem a good example, as this could be a first Alpine stage, with a climb steep enough to ensure some action, before a tougher second stage over several cols) whereas some of those that have gone on to continue to host have been less interesting climbs like Risoul 1850 and Valfréjus. Another problem has been the recent tendency to try to push for the summit finish at iconic passes, as we are seeing with Izoard this year. It seems unnecessary really, I know Galibier worked in 2011, but that was mainly because the Pyrenées were raced so poorly. This year Serre-Chevalier is paying, but they're climbing Galibier north, so they want a descent finish otherwise their station doesn't get any airtime, whereas on the MTF on Galibier south, the riders had to go through the station.

There are plenty of other options within the Maurienne valley that I would have liked while they were regularly going through there. The Saint-François-Longchamp station hosted the Dauphiné in 2009 AND the Tour just discovered the Col de Chaussy... could we not do a stage that climbs Madeleine north and descends on the D76 before climbing back up on the D213 to the station, possibly going through Chaussy, Mollard or even freaking Glandon between? That would look like this, and be a monster stage that just ran between regular Tour hosts in the valley:

You could also skip Chaussy if you wanted to do the fairly standard 125-130km final mountain stage deal that ASO likes at present.

(as an aside, why are they so reluctant to use La Toussuire as a pass? You can go via Fontcouverte and Le Corbier to attach it to Croix-de-Fer then descend via La Rochette and Les Bottières to go back into Saint-Jean, or other way around. This would open up a range of new options, you could even realistically without using the same road twice put in a sequence of climbs Croix-de-Fer -> La Toussuire -> Mollard)

The Pyrenees are worse simply because the same areas host every single time. It's always one of the stations around Luchon or the town itself (but never Superbagnères anymore, sadly), Pau will host a rest day or a stage, and further east either Andorra will pay or it'll be either Ax-3-Domaines or the Plateau de Beille. In fairness, a lot of the passes to the west of the Pyrenees are very narrow and difficult to incorporate, although the Unipuerto stage to PSM was disappointing, though the climb in and of itself is great. The reliance on the same trunk passes makes some sense as long as there are no Spanish border passes that are usable between Portillón and Pourtalet (ASO have shown a reluctance to use the tunnel passes like the Túnel de Bielsa, whereas the Vuelta could reasonably do a stage into France via this route as they have not shown similar reluctance), and although the only stage to finish there was great, it doesn't look like Piau-Engaly is paying to host again anytime soon, so that rather leaves Peyragudes and Pla d'Adet in that neck of the woods. Smaller stations that used to host, like Guzet-Neige, seem to either not want the Tour or not be able to afford it (or have enough room for it) anymore; in the East of the Pyrenées further towards the coast than Ax-les-Thermes few resorts are profitable enough for it to be viable; while Err-Puigmal would make a great MTF, the station is closed. The only station that could realistically host an MTF over that neck of the woods is Font-Romeu, and that's not a very interesting climb.

If the Tour is going to keep going Unipuerto and putting the Pyrenées first, I'd quite like a Menté finish, at the Station de Mourtis. That's a really steep and tough climb from the west that is underappreciated by the Tour.

 

[OlavEH]

Re:

The Pyrenees are worse simply because the same areas host every single time. It's always one of the stations around Luchon or the town itself (but never Superbagnères anymore, sadly)

Is it the same organization that pays for stage finishes in both Luchon and at Peyragudes, and would also have to pay for a finsh at Superbagneres?

 

[doperhopper]

ASO ignores climbs, but also entire regions. In that respect, the Jura mountains are finally getting some attention. I think that it's mostly due to complacency on ASO's part: using what has worked in the past vs. having to study lodging possibilities and doing on-site research. Easier to design from an office in Paris, with a warm cup of coffee, rather than spending hours in a car, I suppose. Also, name recognition plays a role: the masses know little besides AdH, Tourmalet, Ventoux. You get the public more excited and the ratings higher by using the Kardashians.

A few observations: yes, double the distance of the Marseille ITT, and half of the critics would appreciate the design a lot more. And yes, the PDBF design is a (huge) disgrace. The Ballons Comtois are right there, using them would have broken the peloton. Instead, the run in to the final climb will be extremely dangerous, with everybody trying to be in the front. Finally, comparing the TdF of the past to today's in terms of excitement is a bit tricky for many reasons, one of which (not mentioned) is the ear pieces that have contributed to more calculated racing. Or the points system, with teams defending a 7th place in the GC. Among others...

well, ignores... ASO mafia backed by politician works a bit differently: regions and towns are selected SOLELY on the auction basis, who pays more gets the finish, end of story (even the minuscule Dauphine finish towns pay quite some cash)

they do not care about the distance, profile or anythng... at all... just milk the cow as much as possible before the teams group together, revolt and someone creates counterTour (e.g. in the U.S.) and all top teams go there

 

[diego721]

Well only by design I gave a 6.
Besides I'm colombian and obvioisly lest ITT kms favours Quintana's chances, I think that a little longer final ITT won't hurt, that could have the effect of creat certain urgency on Nairo and specially Movistar to get minutes before, and that means more attacks and a challenge to be more creative.
Right now Froome is the best GT rider and that is the reason of him winning, but IMHO the trouble that had lead the last tours to be boring is the Sky dominance and reducing ITT kms won't change that. The fact is that Froome is a great climber and you could put plenty monster mountains and MTF that one man like Quintana (as good as he is) won't be facing Froome 1vs1 it will be 1vs 4 or 5 skyborgs. That dominance plus radio that make for a more calculated racing kills the action, even in Lance domination era was more of a individual dominance and we got more emotions for long-range attacks because it was one rider facing and other not two or three facing and entire team.
So, this is my favorite GT I hope for good racing, hope for a monster-form Quintana, but probably thing won't change until we have smaller teams, even without ITT Froome would still be the favorite for the top spot in the podium at Champs Elysees.

 

[gregrowlerson]

I think that ASO does care about its route and its brand, as well as it cares about its money. They attempt to give a reasonable route for racing whilst taking the money for some finishers in towns that would be more interesting finishing elsewhere. "Attempt to give a reasonable route?!" Well I'm sure that it would be possible to have every mountain stage where the final climb topped out at over 50kms to the finish, until the final stage, which would be 120 kms long and would finish up Alp duhuez just to be iconic (or ironic). The brand overall probably wouldn't suffer. Think about that horrid stage that took us over the Tourmalet with still 70 or so kms to race in 2009. Phil and Paul could still go on and on about this climb during the pre-race, as well as during the race itself, and 80% of the casual viewers probably didn't care that the peloton was climbing it at barely a snails pace. There was probably a stupid boring breakaway some ten minutes up the road that contained "the hero of the day" too. Add in plenty of picturesque views of France, and well, it's still probably better than 90% of stuff on the other channel's....

ASO don't do it, this bad, too often though. And repetitiveness is good, sometimes. I am really looking forward to the Telegraphe/Galibier next year. I am confident that this will be a great stage. The disappointing nature of the following day's stage will help it. As far as repetition goes, I don't mind if they give us Pailhares/AX3 often; it's a brilliant climbing combo with zero flat in-between, also giving the harder then easy climb that the Giro does so well. Great combos like this should be done more often, which brings us back to the much lauded Romme/Columbierre. Why haven't they returned there? 2009 is quite a long time ago now.

Repetition in the form of Alp Duez every other year is not good. The climb itself is pretty great, and is probably underrated around here because it is overrated; but it doesn't connect well with other climbs. There is too much flat before it, no matter how you approach it. Hench if you had a stage like that (with another 2 HC climbs before it as they used to do) following a Telegraphe/Galibier like stage, then the first stage probably wouldn't be raced, but you wouldn't get much in the way of better racing then what you will see on the Izoard stage. Because Alp duez will only be raced on the final climb anyway, though with a brutal stage as a whole the GC riders won't race the day before; they've still got to drag themselves over those multiple HC climbs. That's why I kinda like the *** Izoard stage next year.

But with Alp duez, I like the idea of returning to an ITT there. Yeah, I know they're afraid of the crowds, but that would be cool. Ventoux could be used for that too, given its iconic nature, but lack of nearby climbs.

LS, I like Mente too, and don't know why it is only used early in stages as a leg breaker. This climb would do serious damage if included late in a stage. Your suggestion to use LaToussierre as a pass is interesting; it's a long grind, but without any really difficult pinches, so isn't great as a MTF (the Landis stage and circumstances with the heat were a bit exceptional). Do you think they can/should use the Alp duez (on the premise that they 'have' to use it) as a pass also? And I don't mean just to reconnect up with itself

Someone mentioned Luz Ardiden. It's used about enough. It's not that tough a climb, and there's quite a bit of false flat between that and Tourmalet if I remember rightly.

 

[Netserk]

Luz Ardiden has only been used once since 2003 ('11) and it connects brilliantly with Tourmalet. It's definitely one of the best Pyrenean MTFs.

Alpe d'Huez can be used as a pass (as Sarenne) and back rights into Les Deux Alpes. Alternatively you could go up Galibier after Sarenne and finish either at the top or down in Valloire.

 

[rghysens]

Re:

Someone mentioned Luz Ardiden. It's used about enough. It's not that tough a climb, and there's quite a bit of false flat between that and Tourmalet if I remember rightly.

Luz Ardiden is about as difficult as l'Alpe d'Huez (14.1km @ 7.8% vs. 13.8 @ 8.1%), while it starts immediately after the descent of the Tourmalet.

 

[Netserk]

^^That's the numbers for the unused side, no? The regular side, which links perfectly with Tourmalet, is 13.5km @ 7.7% (http://www.cyclingcols.com/col/LuzArdiden#profile1084)

 

[OlavEH]

Re:

ASO don't do it, this bad, too often though. And repetitiveness is good, sometimes. I am really looking forward to the Telegraphe/Galibier next year. I am confident that this will be a great stage. The disappointing nature of the following day's stage will help it. As far as repetition goes, I don't mind if they give us Pailhares/AX3 often; it's a brilliant climbing combo with zero flat in-between, also giving the harder then easy climb that the Giro does so well. Great combos like this should be done more often, which brings us back to the much lauded Romme/Columbierre. Why haven't they returned there? 2009 is quite a long time ago now.

The problem with the Tour is that repetitiveness is more the rule and not the exception. Looking at the last 8-10 versions of the Tour, I find the following characteristics of the mountains stages.

1) Very frequent use of Bagneres de Luchon in the Pyrenees and tha Maurienne Valley in the Alps including Peyragudes and La Toussuiere. Also including climbs like Peyresourde and Glandon/Croix de Fer almost every year.

2) Use of mountain passes as stage finish. Aubisque in 07, Tourmalet in 10, Galibier in 11 and Izoard next year. You could argue that this isn't very often, but it is a symptom of the same problem; lack of fantasy and/or will in the stage creation process.

3) Use of same climb two or more times in the same Tour. Like Tourmalet in 10, Galibier in 11, Alpe d'Huez in 13 and Glandon/Croix de Fer in 15. I don't know if this is out of commercial/practical reasons or out of pure laziness, but I still don't like it.

4) Inclusion of new and tough climbs, but making them less relevant by placing them far away from the stage finish. Like Peguere in 12 and Colombier in 12 and 16. Espcially the use of Colombiere is a shame.

5) Lack of the type of combos you are talking about. How many like these have we seen in the Tour the last 10 years. Pailheres-Ax Les Thermes a couples of times, Romme-Colombier in 09 and Forclaz-Finhaut-Emosson this year. Not many more.

Especially 1) combined with 4) and 5) is a big problem. I understand that some parts of the Alps and Pyrenees are willing to pay more for stages, but if there acutally was a will to create more exciting and innovative stages, they would also manage to do ut without compromising too much on the commerical part. A good example was this years stage ending in Culoz. That was a perfect opportunity to use the Biche-Colombier combo, but that didn't happen. Same kinf of thinking also applies to several other stages during the last decade.

 

[Pantani_lives]

This is designed for Bardet: not many TT, stages where a surprise attack could pay off, a race that's hard to control, a lot of middle mountains, finishes after a descent...

 

[vedrafjord]

Re:

Repetition in the form of Alp Duez every other year is not good. The climb itself is pretty great, and is probably underrated around here because it is overrated; but it doesn't connect well with other climbs. There is too much flat before it, no matter how you approach it.

Coincidentally I was there last week, and I saw two other ways onto it other than the pan-flat valley. If you go over Croix de Fer or Glandon from the north you can cut up at Lac du Verney on the way down and take the balcony road, although you'll emerge at Huez and miss over half the climb:

Alternatively if you're coming down Laureret from the Galibier etc. you could cut up at Le Freney d'Oisans and emerge at La Garde and still get 16 of the 21 bends:

These roads are narrow local roads though.

 

[guncha]

A few observations: yes, double the distance of the Marseille ITT, and half of the critics would appreciate the design a lot more.

I would have given the route 6 if last ITT had 40km; 7 if last ITT had 50km+. In addition to longer ITTs: it would have been 8 or 9 with MTF on Galibier or Peregue.
However, abnormal routes like TDF 17, TDF 15, TDF 12, TDF 09 will always be 1 or 2. Such routes are like 20km biathlon with 1 shooting or triathlon with one discipline being symbolic: you can watch them but they are crap.

 

[Valv.Piti]

“Now that I’ve had the chance to digest the Tour route a bit more, obviously it’s very light on time trial kilometres. That means the race will be in the mountains but saying that, with only three mountain top finishes it gives very few opportunities for the GC guys to race it out. I’m not sure how it’s going to pan out. I hope it’s going to be an exciting race but it seems like there will be very few GC battles.”

Froome can't hide that he thinks its a very uninspiring route as well. That would probably be a 4 from him.

 

[DFA123]

Re: Re:

I rate the route with a 8.

I see the same people whining who whined for 3 months because of the vuelta route and that was an excellent GT.

Put 100+ TT km in the route and Froome will get 7 minutes advantage on most climbers so almost no competition if nothing irregular happens. Exciting as hell...

Agreed. It's become clear that a lot of fans don't really understand that cycling has changed in recent years, and that routes must change accordingly to keep the racing interesting (which should always be the priority). Long hard slog stages and loads of TTs just equate to boring, negative racing these days - when teams are so strong and controlling.

Also, stages of less than 150km which will be ridden hard and with more long range attacks, make for a harder and more demanding race than loads of 200km plus stages ridden at a snail's pace. Likewise, the high number of sprint stages may be a bit dull in themselves, but at least they give other riders a chance to recover a bit and have the ability to light up the race on the more interesting stages - rather than being too tired to do anything.

Examples, please.

The only two stages in this year's Vuelta over 200km were by far the most boring of the race.

Same in the Tour. The stages over 200km were invariably awful.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

I rate the route with a 8.

I see the same people whining who whined for 3 months because of the vuelta route and that was an excellent GT.

Put 100+ TT km in the route and Froome will get 7 minutes advantage on most climbers so almost no competition if nothing irregular happens. Exciting as hell...

Agreed. It's become clear that a lot of fans don't really understand that cycling has changed in recent years, and that routes must change accordingly to keep the racing interesting (which should always be the priority). Long hard slog stages and loads of TTs just equate to boring, negative racing these days - when teams are so strong and controlling.

Also, stages of less than 150km which will be ridden hard and with more long range attacks, make for a harder and more demanding race than loads of 200km plus stages ridden at a snail's pace. Likewise, the high number of sprint stages may be a bit dull in themselves, but at least they give other riders a chance to recover a bit and have the ability to light up the race on the more interesting stages - rather than being too tired to do anything.

Examples, please.

The only two stages in this year's Vuelta over 200km were by far the most boring of the race.

Same in the Tour. The stages over 200km were invariably awful.

Have you looked at the profiles? That wasn't a distance thing, it was a stage design thing. The Vuelta stage was nerfed from a great medium mountain stage to a stage with some medium mountains around the halfway point and a rolling end. No opportunities to do something left, and the queen to the Aubisque was a day later.

The Tour stages over 200km were awful because they were all sprints, except for the stage that GVA won, which was one of the better stages of the Tour. Mostly because the design was good.

It's not like the Tour had any great short stage, or any great stage in particular. Most of the spectacle was breakaway or gimmick action.

The Vuelta was a lot of 15 minute action, and one epic stage. And I do think that Alberto Contador has more responsibility for that than the length of that stage.

If you design a 250km stage well, it has invariably more potential than a well designed short stage. They should be a part of GT racing, especially as the fatigue carries on to the next days. Nobody is saying all stages should be long, but there should be good variety. And nowadays too many mountain stages are going toward sub 150km gimmicks.

 

[Netserk]

I rate the route with a 8.

I see the same people whining who whined for 3 months because of the vuelta route and that was an excellent GT.

Put 100+ TT km in the route and Froome will get 7 minutes advantage on most climbers so almost no competition if nothing irregular happens. Exciting as hell...

Agreed. It's become clear that a lot of fans don't really understand that cycling has changed in recent years, and that routes must change accordingly to keep the racing interesting (which should always be the priority). Long hard slog stages and loads of TTs just equate to boring, negative racing these days - when teams are so strong and controlling.

Also, stages of less than 150km which will be ridden hard and with more long range attacks, make for a harder and more demanding race than loads of 200km plus stages ridden at a snail's pace. Likewise, the high number of sprint stages may be a bit dull in themselves, but at least they give other riders a chance to recover a bit and have the ability to light up the race on the more interesting stages - rather than being too tired to do anything.

Examples, please.

The only two stages in this year's Vuelta over 200km were by far the most boring of the race.

Same in the Tour. The stages over 200km were invariably awful.

Afaik, there was only one stage over 200km in the Vuelta this year, and it wasn't a "long hard slog". The only stage that got near to that was the Aubisque stage, and it was quite good and saw a lot of action, even if Quintana wasn't able to distance Froome.

There was not a single "long hard slog stage" in the Tour this year. Which stage are you thinking of?

 

[Netserk]

But I'm sure the flat sprint stages wouldn't "equate to boring, negative racing" if only they were less than 200km long....

 

[Valv.Piti]

If it gets repeated too much it will eventually be true.

There is some truth to it in the modern peloton, I think. Its obviously not as black/white, but the tendency as of now (especially since it seems to be consensus for everybody in the media, commentators etc.) is pretty frightening. I mean, just look at the Tour-route. Not saying it will turn out to be crap, it could definitely produce some decent racing, but the best for cycling as of now in my humble opinion would be to dispel the myth through shitty racing on these parcours. I'd take that in 2017 and get back to some more traditional routes.

 

[Maaaaaaaarten]

One thing that I just cannot fathom is why these routes have to be so easy. That goes for TTing, (medium and high) mountains, distance; the whole package. Bikes, roads, training methods, nutrition, etc. everything has been getting better in recent decades, but somehow they make easier and easier routes. If we want to retain the cycling of the era that we loved, shouldn't we let the routes become harder to compensate for everything else becoming better and easier? Better roads, bikes, training etc. means a higher average speed, which means a better benefit of drafting, which means controlling races becomes easier and attacking becomes less succesful. Why can't we just have much harder routes than we used to, to compensate for everything else becoming much easier? This would cause average speeds to drop and drafting would become less efficient. Cyclists used to be able to cycle 300km or mountain stages with a bunch of HC climbs strung together with crappier bikes, roads, training, nutrition etc. a few decades ago; they should be able to do even more now with everything else becoming easier, but somehow they have to do less!

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

One thing that I just cannot fathom is why these routes have to be so easy. That goes for TTing, (medium and high) mountains, distance; the whole package. Bikes, roads, training methods, nutrition, etc. everything has been getting better in recent decades, but somehow they make easier and easier routes. If we want to retain the cycling of the era that we loved, shouldn't we let the routes become harder to compensate for everything else becoming better and easier? Better roads, bikes, training etc. means a higher average speed, which means a better benefit of drafting, which means controlling races becomes easier and attacking becomes less succesful. Why can't we just have much harder routes than we used to, to compensate for everything else becoming much easier? This would cause average speeds to drop and drafting would become less efficient. Cyclists used to be able to cycle 300km or mountain stages with a bunch of HC climbs strung together with crappier bikes, roads, training, nutrition etc. a few decades ago; they should be able to do even more now with everything else becoming easier, but somehow they have to do less!

Because attention spans have - OMG it's a bird

 

[Valv.Piti]

Don't worry Maarten, I'll be back, trust me.

 

[Breh]

Re:

One thing that I just cannot fathom is why these routes have to be so easy. That goes for TTing, (medium and high) mountains, distance; the whole package. Bikes, roads, training methods, nutrition, etc. everything has been getting better in recent decades, but somehow they make easier and easier routes. If we want to retain the cycling of the era that we loved, shouldn't we let the routes become harder to compensate for everything else becoming better and easier? Better roads, bikes, training etc. means a higher average speed, which means a better benefit of drafting, which means controlling races becomes easier and attacking becomes less succesful. Why can't we just have much harder routes than we used to, to compensate for everything else becoming much easier? This would cause average speeds to drop and drafting would become less efficient. Cyclists used to be able to cycle 300km or mountain stages with a bunch of HC climbs strung together with crappier bikes, roads, training, nutrition etc. a few decades ago; they should be able to do even more now with everything else becoming easier, but somehow they have to do less!

clinic, clinic, clinic

 

[hrotha]

Clinic has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Clinic has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Well, you could argue that riders 20 years ago didn't have it more difficult because although their bikes maybe weren't as good, they were all doped. (I hope it's okay to write this here and not in the clinic because it's really not a secret)