Rate the TdF 2017 route

[King Boonen]

9 sprint stages? Are ASO that desperate for Cav to break Merckx's record?

 

[SergeDeM]

Re: Re:

Want to have lots of ITT again? You'll have to wait until most of the main GC contenders do it well so it becomes a part of the show that brings uncertainty. Good luck with that.

Or until we have a group of GC contenders that are shitty time trialists, but can gain 5+ minutes in the mountains on the GC contenders that are top time trialists. Type Quintana in peak form vs a type similar to Wiggins.

Nope. You can only have that if the best GC TT specialist you can come up with is Wiggins and the best GC climber you have is Chaves. A Contador/Nibali/Quintana type would win that 9 out of 10 times, and there's always somebody like that. Heck, if the 2012 Tour hadn't been the shittiest route in forever then it would've been Froome/Nibali's first tour, depending on Sky tactics.

 

[railxmig]

I think i wrote some time before that this TdF will be with Bardet in mind but for me it looks more like Bardet-tease route. I doubt he will be happy with the amount of flat after descents.

1. So they do use Biche and Mont du Chat so... first, why Biche wasn't availavle last year? Second, why the stage utilizing Biche, Colombiere and Chat sucks and why it's infuriating? These are three really good climbs but Colombiere is quite easy from this side and Mont du Chat's best option is propably Col de l'Epine (i'm doubtful about Mont Revard). Madeleine south is harder than Biche and maybe similar in difficulty to both Biche and Colombiere and whenever Madeleine was in the middle of a stage last time it saw action was in propably 1997 when Virenque tried something if i remember correctly. So nothing will happen.

Mont du Chat is one of the harder (hardest?) climbs in France from both sides. The road is narrow and the descent to Le Bourget-du-Lac is very tricky with tons of smaller turns you need balls to cut. That's amazing - a proper descent which forces muscles and brain to work - teammate(s) won't help you really if you're behind. But... couldn't ASO work a finish in Le Bourget-du-Lac? Chambery could be promoted by jus joining it's name to the finish like Chambery/Le Bourget-du-Lac or sth similar.

This 13km run-in to Chambery is basically flat and it will propably kill Bardet. Maybe better would be to utilize some of the hills north of Chambery (D13, D15) and/or move the finish to La Motte-Servolex (at least one hosted a Tour stage). Such terrain could be much better to hold the gaps or even gain some time (bigger stamina factor after a difficult descent). It's kind of similar to Culoz stage this year but with harder climbs. Maybe it will result in a Valverde type of 10-man sprint in which Bardet definitely has chances.

BTW, calling it one of the most creative stages is way exaggerated. Not only these particular cols were in heavy design traffic for years but this stage imo just isn't good at all. This 100km Foix stage is more creative... a 100km non-mtf mountain stage. That's what i can call peculiar and confusing.

2. It's glad to see Telegraphe/Galibier combo yet again and this time the descent is shorter with a bit lesser flase-flat. As a last stage of the tour it maybe could work but ekhm... welcome design prowess from ASO as they decided to turn a fine mountain stage (Croix de Fer, Galibier) into a transitional stage by placing Izoard MTF on the next stage. Do you see a problem here?

3. I like this Izoard MTF but it should be before Galibier stage. Izoard south is relatively hard (fine HC) and i'm nicely surprised to see ASO managing a MTF on top of it. Of course Agnel is a much better run-in but i'm ok with what i' got.

4. Pyrenees are peculiar - a modded 2012 route but this time Foix is a bit more proper (apparently no stupid lap around the city). Still i doubt Latrape and Agnel will compensate for Peguere's awful 25km descent/false-flat. Besides, it's really interesing what will happen in a 100km non-mtf mountain stage. Seriously. Of course it won't be a Formigal repeating because the first kms are rather easy and this scenario happened just this year - it's too fresh of a memory to forget. Still it's just interesting to see such strange stage's outcome. So, let's say i'm not really happy with Pyrenees (one stage more maybe before Peyragudes?) but i'm ok with what i got.

5. Amount of time trials is awful. I seen some people beging for bringing back 90's and 00's route propably not remembering how awful they were. Over 100km TT per GT is just too much - time trials normally generate bigger gaps than mountain stages. I'm more advocating 2011 Tour TT style with 1st longer (40-50km) flat TT and a bit shorter 2nd hilly TT (35-40km) with overally roughly 80km TT. 35km ITT per GT will never be fine in my book. The last TT being after the mountain stages doesn't really help either.

6. The first week is a bit different than normally. It's quite hard with a bit improved Station des Rousses, Mont du Chat and PDBF. Maybe lack of a flahute stage is a little annoying (wind, cobbles or technical terrain like Spa '10) but i'm fine with that. I have nothing against Liege being a sprint stage for a change but there's one particular problem hiding here...

7. There are 8-9 sprints rumored? Emm... i perfectly understand 6-7 especially if they're smartly put with the rest of the route but 9 is a bit too much. Sprinters manage to pay their bills with 6 stages. With 9 they'll be wealthier than every sheikh combined.

8. I've seen some coment's about TdF losing identity. I don't understand how a GT can have an identity. They were allways created to suit a particular rider or set of riders. Tour changed from flattish (60-s) to mountainous (70-s, 80-s) to time trial heavy (90-s, 00-s) to mountainous once again (10-s). The same was with other GT's. Of course Giro was (not) allways more mountainous and technically difficult but that's how the terrain and roads in Italy are. Italy has hardly any flat and even Apennine false-flats are twisty. That doesn't change the Giro and Vuelta were built for particular set of riders through the years.

Giro was mountainous from the beginning because of the terrain this country is on which worked well to the 60's (Coppi, Bartali, Gimondi). In the 70's Italy for some reason had a hype towards Moser and Saronni suddenly promoting both of them as GT riders thanks to turning Giro into TT/sprint-fest ('79 edition in particular). When both of them ended their carrers Giro got a bit more balanced until the new generation of climbers (Chioccioli, Chiappucci, Pantani, Gotti, Simoni, Ricco) came in the 90's and 00's. Giro was suddenly mountain heavy most of the time ('94-'08). Nowadays Italy have some good breakaway/punchy riders so there seems to be a bigger emphasis on hilly and medium mountain stages (2010, 2013, partly 2016). My cycling history nowledge is lacking a lot and propably lads like Eshnar and LS will soon refute any of my statemnts. It's good for knowledge i guess.

Conclusion. This is one of ASOs clunkiest designs yet. It's just a bunch of stages thrown using RNG (basically 60's-70's Giro). It's like a Digital Homicide game with random asset flipping and recycling (Rodez, Pau, PDBF, Peyragudes) without any bigger thought (i'm questioning the usage of Mont du Chat, PDBF, Foix, Bergerac, Liege) and barely working mechanics (Izoard after Galibier, 20km ITT as the climax).

The first rest day transfer is not natural at all. Why use Pyrenees first when your last 1st week stage ends in Chambery? Why Periguex - Bergerac is not a TT? Why there's no TTs? I guess they tried to give Bardet a chance with bigger emphasis on descents but then... Foix and Galibier are not hard descents at all and the only hard one - Mont du Chat is after a very hard climb (Bardet is not Pinot or Quintana) and followed by a 13km flat dash to the finish. Besides, i doubt Bardet will repeat this year's success.

Sorry, but in my eyes this design is just ugly.

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Or maybe, I don't know, proper mountain stages to compensate. The route may be balanced (in the context of who will contend), but that is as much about the mountain stages as the TTs.

How could they design the mountain stages in the Tour to compensate for 80-100 kms of ITT if you want somebody to give Froome a fight for the win?

Easily. Have the number of mountain stages of recently and with the hardness of the past.

 

[OlavEH]

Re: Re:

Easily. Have the number of mountain stages of recently and with the hardness of the past.

You mean longer mountain stages with more height meters?

 

[Netserk]

Yes. We haven't had 3 HC climbs in one stage since 2011.

Wouldn't mind a proper MTT again neither.

Don't tell me that the 1994 route wasn't balanced (in fact, despite 117.7km of ITT, it was to the mountainous side).

All you needed to change was to make the first week a bit more interesting and have a few hills here and there.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Yes. We haven't had 3 HC climbs in one stage since 2011.

Funnily we will most likely have that next year with Biche, Colombiere and Chat :lol:

 

[Netserk]

Yeah, and that stage gets a lot of praise. However, for a 3 HC climbs stage, there's too much flat between the first two and the last for them to have maximal impact and it is unfortunate (but not disastrous) that there's 11km of flat after the end of the descent. The 3 climbs 'only' have a combined vertical gain of ~3200m. The stage will in total have a bit more than 4000m. Not exactly monstrous.

 

[Red Rick]

The value of HC categorization has been going down for years. That 2011 stage had the Izoard as the weakest climb, which was still like 1200m of ascent.

 

[Netserk]

Galibier was the weakest climb.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Galibier was the weakest climb.

Yeah you could argue that Galibier isn't even HC.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

Galibier was the weakest climb.

Yeah you could argue that Galibier isn't even HC.

Just some minor false flat, even.

 

[railxmig]

Re:

Yeah, and that stage gets a lot of praise. However, for a 3 HC climbs stage, there's too much flat between the first two and the last for them to have maximal impact and it is unfortunate (but not disastrous) that there's 11km of flat after the end of the descent. The 3 climbs 'only' have a combined vertical gain of ~3200m. The stage will in total have a bit more than 4000m. Not exactly monstrous.

Actually i see that flat end a bit more disastrous than unfortunate. If it would be hilly and/or on narrower roads then maybe it could work. The stamina factor would have a bit bigger impact. A rider who feels/survived better (considering difficulty of the descent propably the leading one) could hold or even gain some time on the others. Flat and wide roads are more towards groups than individuals. I think you're right with the assessment of Biche-Colombiere. There's too much flat to have an impact on the domestiques. Besides, Mont du Chat is difficult enough to limit the impact of domestiques (maybe not Sky and Astana's). I predict a very interesting stage but a roughly 10-man sprint in Chambery.

 

[OlavEH]

Re:

Don't tell me that the 1994 route wasn't balanced (in fact, despite 117.7km of ITT, it was to the mountainous side).

All you needed to change was to make the first week a bit more interesting and have a few hills here and there.

I don't think you'll see several 200 km+ mountain stages, a total of at least 100+ km time trial and a total racing time of at least 100 hours again any time soon. Though I agree on longer and tougher mountain stages. 2 stages of 6+ hours and 4500-5000 height meters should be a goal in every TDF.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I think we all hope for something like Madeleine in 2010 (very similar design) which actually proved it could work early in the race. If it indeed ends in a 10-man group - which is worse case scenario, IMO - we will probably witness a very stale race the rest of the way given the weak remaining mountain stages.

 

[Ikbengodniet]

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...

 

[Eshnar]

"I won the last hand with 2-7 against AA so AA are ***, better go all-in next time I get 2-7"

 

[Red Rick]

Re:

"I won the last hand with 2-7 against AA so AA are ****, better go all-in next time I get 2-7"

Bad analogy.

Opponent has 7-7. ASO can pick their own cards. ASO picks 7-2

 

[Ikbengodniet]

Re:

"I won the last hand with 2-7 against AA so AA are ****, better go all-in next time I get 2-7"

Better play only AA and be predictable indeed.

 

[Eshnar]

Re: Re:

"I won the last hand with 2-7 against AA so AA are ****, better go all-in next time I get 2-7"

Better play only AA and be predictable indeed.

wait, you don't think ASO are predictable already?

 

[SafeBet]

I read all the comments before checking the (available) profiles and thought this was gonna be the worst TdF in history.
Now that I've seen all the profiles, I don't think it's that bad. Sure it lacks TT kms, but I wasn't expecting any better, considering the trend we've seen in recent years. I really fancy the first weekend. The Foix stage could be entertaining or a snoozefest but it's worth a try. The second weekend is a big letdown although the stage to Puy-en-Velay has potential to surprise. Can't comment the third week cause some profiles have yet to be released but it does look terrible.

Overall I gave it a 6, possibly because I'm getting used to ASO's uninspiring race designing. I'd give it a 4 if it was the Giro.

 

[DFA123]

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.

 

[Netserk]

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.

 

[Red Rick]

Yeah, that interesting stage into Foix is a stage that Sky can control with 5 riders. They barely need the other 4. No need for any team to get tired on this route.

 

[hrotha]

The problem is the racing isn't getting more interesting with these routes. Quite the contrary. This year's Tour was without a doubt the worst GT I've ever watched.