Rate the TdF 2017 route

[Flamin]

Checked the route now. If there's really 9 pure sprint stages, it's terrible. Alps are a joke too. On the other hand, I dislike backloaded routes and many MTF's, so that's a positive. Mont du Chat stage is great and even better: it's early in the race, before a rest day.

Got to see the 'flat' and transitional stages to give a definite rating.

I wonder what Quintana is thinking now. He needs to take a completely different approach than he's used to if he wants to win the Tour.

 

[Netserk]

Judged by this, the flat stages seem pretty flat. (stage 14 is there twice)

Stage 16 is flatter and easier to control than stage 15 to Valence in '15 that Greipel won.

 

[yaco]

Re: Re:

It's ridiculous to think that there's a "Colombian" effect bringing down the number of ITT Kms, when we know there are three main reasons for this: One, the top french riders are bad TTers; Two, more ITT Kms means more certainty of Froome winning which is bad for the show as it becomes easier to predict; and Three, the average viewer gets bored with long ITTs.

The days of more than 70 ITT per tour are not coming back soon, deal with it. It's boring for the average Joe and severely reduces the amount of contenders, which translates to less TV revenue.

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.

Yep to all of the above, with the disclaimer that pretty much every ITT - long or short - is boring to the casual fan. ASO may as well skip them altogether with the current GT specialist hierarchy in mind.

I suppose long TTTs could prove to be reasonably popular if you design them in ways that it becomes much more likely that the teams will fall apart too soon. The TTTs of the recent past have all been too short to create sufficient drama. And yes, I know they're unfair. That's not the point. They do have an advantage, though: fewer climbers per top team, which could lead to mountain stages that are harder to control. But the former would, once again, hurt Bardet, so this won't happen either.

Nailed it with the TTT - My only proviso is a TTT must be in the first three stages to safeguard against disasters - Think in 2015 the TTT was stage 6 but at the stage OBE lost 3 riders in the big crash in stage 4 - The irony is these forums are full of people banging on how GT''s are boring but their posts still reflect the old ways of racing GT's - There must be a prescribed amount of ITT KM's, mountain top finishes etc - I've previously posted that if you want to beat the Sky Train you need to choose a different balance in your team - Choose only 4 mountain riders, 2 flat domestiques and maybe 3 classic/rouleur domestiques and attack the flat parts of mountain stages.

 

[rick james]

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...

Grand tours should be balanced routes, The Tour hasn't been balanced for a few years now, routes shouldn't be anti Froome

 

[Breh]

He can ride something else if he wants to.

 

[Flamin]

Re:

Judged by this, the flat stages seem pretty flat. (stage 14 is there twice)

Stage 16 is flatter and easier to control than stage 15 to Valence in '15 that Greipel won.

Looks really bad indeed. Those first 7 days are simply horrendous.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re:

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.

I think the general consensus was this year's route was kinda good. Sure, it lacked say 10-20 km more time trailing, but the possibilities to attack were endless. There were MANY opportunities.

The problem was Quintana was incredibly bad and Contador crashed. Whatever the route, it would have been a snoozefest.

 

[Red Rick]

Re: Re:

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.

I think the general consensus was this year's route was kinda good. Sure, it lacked say 10-20 km more time trailing, but the possibilities to attack were endless. There were MANY opportunities.

The problem was Quintana was incredibly bad and Contador crashed. Whatever the route, it would have been a snoozefest.

Agreed. This year was decent. Surely all of us had things we didn't like, but all the issues that route had were rather minor things compared to this one.

 

[rghysens]

Re: Re:

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.

The question is, has cycling changed because of the change in courses, or the other way around.
Maybe you should think of the 5 (or 10) most exciting TdF stages of the last 5 years and ask how many similar stages we will get in 2017.
Also, the stage to Corvara Alta Badia in this years Giro was a "classic" mountain stage, but still very entertaining (I know the giro isn't the Tour, but still...)

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

I think the general consensus was this year's route was kinda good. Sure, it lacked say 10-20 km more time trailing, but the possibilities to attack were endless. There were MANY opportunities.

The problem was Quintana was incredibly bad and Contador crashed. Whatever the route, it would have been a snoozefest.

I don't know about the consensus. If that was the consensus, I strongly disagree with it. Sure, there were MANY opportunities, but little incentive for anyone to take them. The shortage of flat ITT'ing was an enormous flaw that invalidated the rest of the design. Much like this year.

It wasn't as bad as 2015 in that regard, but it was far from "kinda good" from my point of view.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

I think the general consensus was this year's route was kinda good. Sure, it lacked say 10-20 km more time trailing, but the possibilities to attack were endless. There were MANY opportunities.

The problem was Quintana was incredibly bad and Contador crashed. Whatever the route, it would have been a snoozefest.

I don't know about the consensus. If that was the consensus, I strongly disagree with it. Sure, there were MANY opportunities, but little incentive for anyone to take them. The shortage of flat ITT'ing was an enormous flaw that invalidated the rest of the design. Much like this year.

It wasn't as bad as 2015 in that regard, but it was far from "kinda good" from my point of view.

I don't agree. Quintana was 3 minutes down after the ITT with the Alps + the Jura stage left. Pretty much the scenario you'd want under normal circumstances, but he couldn't do anything. He was done. Its pointless to talk about the route and the lack time trials - this time around, it was the riders, mainly Quintana who simply just didn't show up. You could have done whatever with that route the result would still have been the same.

 

[lebbegehtweider]

From my point its a mediocre route.

The lack of TT kilometers and even more the lack of hard multi mountain stages doens't allow a good rating. Also some less sprint stages would be also ok.

However I don't think the route is that bad. There are many positives:

++ Mont du Chat stage is great.
+ It's an diversified course with different types of mountain stages: HC MTF, 2 Kat 1 finishes (one with mountains before one not), downhill finish after long but not so steep HC pass, one downhill finish after a flat section and a very steep pass, an ultra short stage. At least there is some creativity in this route.
+ Peguere stage is good in my opinion. Obviously in 90% of such stages nothing happens, but in some cases it does and then it can be epic.
+ Galibier stage is good.
+ Belles filles and Peyragudes are ok.
++ And unlike the last editions the interesting stages are mostly well placed. Mont du Chat stage is before rest day, Peguere before two days of. Galibier stage might be better after the Izoard stage but I don't think that this is a big issue, since the finish is not to far from the top of the Galibier, it's the second last mountain and it's harder than the last mountain stage. So if anyone needs to put some time into his rivals it would be stupid to wait for the Izoard stage. Of course Sky may mostly neutralize this stage but as we learned this year they can do it with any stage.

Thus I think some of the critics are a bit exaggerated, in particular when this route is rated more negativ than the previous editions. Of course there are big negativ aspects (lack of time trial, big mountain stages), but these issues were also valid for the last tours. I think this tour is better than the last ones, mostly for the Mont du Chat stage and the good placing of the interesting stages and the mix of different types of mountain stages.

I gave it a 6.

 

[OlavEH]

Btw, is there any other reason than money why the climbs in the southern Alps aren't used more often? Lika Cayolle, Allos, Champs, Bonette, Couillole, Turini? Or is there also practical/logistical reasons? IMO these climbs are terribly underused compared to the climbs in the central and northern part of the French Alps.

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

I don't agree. Quintana was 3 minutes down after the ITT with the Alps + the Jura stage left. Pretty much the scenario you'd want under normal circumstances, but he couldn't do anything. He was done. Its pointless to talk about the route and the lack time trials - this time around, it was the riders, mainly Quintana who simply just didn't show up. You could have done whatever with that route the result would still have been the same.

Your ideal scenario, even with an in-form Quintana, still has the whole Pyrenees being skipped because they're simply not needed.

 

[DFA123]

Re:

Btw, is there any other reason than money why the climbs in the southern Alps aren't used more often? Lika Cayolle, Allos, Champs, Bonette, Couillole, Turini? Or is there also practical/logistical reasons? IMO these climbs are terribly underused compared to the climbs in the central and northern part of the French Alps.

I heard it was because it gets too busy in July once you get close to the Riviera. The villages in the mountains themselves don't have the money, and the towns and cities nearby aren't that interested in hosting stages. Also logistically it would be a nightmare to be closing roads and taking up so many hotel rooms for just one night around that area.

Shame really, because Cayolle and Bonette are the most scenic climbs in the French Alps imo.

 

[Netserk]

Oh, the route also gets a minus point for having the Alpes last for the third year in a row.

 

[rghysens]

Re:

Btw, is there any other reason than money why the climbs in the southern Alps aren't used more often? Lika Cayolle, Allos, Champs, Bonette, Couillole, Turini? Or is there also practical/logistical reasons? IMO these climbs are terribly underused compared to the climbs in the central and northern part of the French Alps.

Well the lack of bigger cities (like Gap, Chambéry, Albertville, Annécy, Aix-les-Bains,...in the northern/central Alps) and bigger ski stations (apart from Isola 2000) means there's generally less money to spend, and there's less infrastructure (highways) to get the race caravan in or out.

 

[Escarabajo]

The consensus in this forum was that it was good route for 2015 and look what happened.

Those 1980's stages are not coming back. The organizers are playing to the riders, the French and the television. They don't want to kill the race before the start. They want to at least give it a chance.

I prefer harder mountains but this is what we got.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re:

Oh, the route also gets a minus point for having the Alpes last for the third year in a row.

Would that mean anything?

 

[Netserk]

Re: Re:

Btw, is there any other reason than money why the climbs in the southern Alps aren't used more often? Lika Cayolle, Allos, Champs, Bonette, Couillole, Turini? Or is there also practical/logistical reasons? IMO these climbs are terribly underused compared to the climbs in the central and northern part of the French Alps.

I heard it was because it gets too busy in July once you get close to the Riviera. The villages in the mountains themselves don't have the money, and the towns and cities nearby aren't that interested in hosting stages. Also logistically it would be a nightmare to be closing roads and taking up so many hotel rooms for just one night around that area.

Shame really, because Cayolle and Bonette are the most scenic climbs in the French Alps imo.

If there was a will to include them...

 

[OlavEH]

Re: Re:

Btw, is there any other reason than money why the climbs in the southern Alps aren't used more often? Lika Cayolle, Allos, Champs, Bonette, Couillole, Turini? Or is there also practical/logistical reasons? IMO these climbs are terribly underused compared to the climbs in the central and northern part of the French Alps.

Well the lack of bigger cities (like Gap, Chambéry, Albertville, Annécy, Aix-les-Bains,...in the northern/central Alps) and bigger ski stations (apart from Isola 2000) means there's generally less money to spend, and there's less infrastructure (highways) to get the race caravan in or out.

Gap and Digne Les Bains isn't that far away. I can understand why they are less used, but the 6 climbs I listed in the post above have been used a total of 4 times in the last 20 years. Cayolle, Champs and Couillole haven't been uses since the 1970s. It's really a shame. They should have tried to use some of these climbs at least a couple of times each decade to get some more variation. Now it's a lot of Galibier, Croix de Fer/Glandon, Huez, Izoard, Colombiere and a few more climbs in the Alps.

 

[Poursuivant]

I can't believe Bardet claimed there was too much TT kms, so cheeky.

 

[Escarabajo]

Re: Re:

Btw, is there any other reason than money why the climbs in the southern Alps aren't used more often? Lika Cayolle, Allos, Champs, Bonette, Couillole, Turini? Or is there also practical/logistical reasons? IMO these climbs are terribly underused compared to the climbs in the central and northern part of the French Alps.

I heard it was because it gets too busy in July once you get close to the Riviera. The villages in the mountains themselves don't have the money, and the towns and cities nearby aren't that interested in hosting stages. Also logistically it would be a nightmare to be closing roads and taking up so many hotel rooms for just one night around that area.

Shame really, because Cayolle and Bonette are the most scenic climbs in the French Alps imo.

If there was a will to include them...

You can fit two more mountains in there!

 

[Tonton]

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).

While I see very good points in your analysis, this part is inaccurate: Coming from the North, the order had to be Biche-GC-MdC. And this side of the GC (via Artemare-Virieu) is the toughest. Col de l'Epine, which I used before the MdC in my last TdF design is only good when coming from the South. The slightly toughest side of the MdC will be used. Actually, in all three climbs, the toughest side will be used. Agree that the finish at Le Bourget (as in my design), would have been a little better. I also agree that the downhill (Merckx making up a minute on Poulidor in '74) is for strong men: brake late, accelerate big after each hairpin, again and again. This is the trio of climbs that so many designers and fans have always wanted to see...finally. Before a rest day. No holding back.

 

[Koba80]

It can never be a 10 score until there is FINALLY a cyclocross stage! (unfortunately 2016 showed us Froome would probably put minutes in there as well, but...)