Rate the TdF 2017 route

[Tonton]

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.

Valv.Piti, thank you for so eloquently making my point of a few pages back.

 

[Big Doopie]

cap the teams at 6 (maybe 7 riders).

but bring back a traditional tdf.

1. No way one team can control
2. Strongest rider is crowned
3. Many fewer favorites crashing in the first week

problem solved.

mic drop.

 

[IndianCyclist]

needs cobbles for greater uncertainty

 

[42x16ss]

There's a couple of decent stages in this route for sure, but it just doesn't quite deliver as a whole. Izoard stage poor compared to what it could've been, Rodez and Mont du Chat look good though.

Too many flat stages and wasted opportunity IMO. Gave it a 5.

 

[gregrowlerson]

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.

Bardet is not even really a rival to Froome; any route would see Froome defeat him (at least at there current levels). The new route more suits him against someone like Porte who is a rival for a podium place. I am sure that Richie would prefer more MTF's and more ITT.

Why design the route to assist the French anyway? I mean why now? Because look at the Tours of the mid to late '90's with Richard Virenque, surely on balance a better climber than Bardet. Yet those routes continued to have 2 long flat ITT's to assist the likes of Ullrich, and on such parcours Virenque had no chance. Obviously they didn't design those routes to assist their favourite riders; they designed them for the good of the race as a whole. Why become biased now?

Also, if ITT's really are that boring for the general public, but ASO feels compelled to have one, then why not have just 1, and make it really long? Why give us 2 'boring' stages when you don't have to?? In addition to this, why not include ITT's just because they are apparently boring? Flat stages are boring, yet we of course see plenty of those. If it was ALL about television ratings then ever stage would have some sort of an uphill finish, or at least finish soon after a difficult climb. We don't see that, so it isn't all about the ratings. And if you have more ITT's then you don't necessarily take away from the number of mountain stages.

So make the time trial long. If 20 kms bores you, then why not be bored for 50 kms? It's still one wasted race day (to the time trial haters) regardless. It's like comparing the difference between a 150km pancake flat stage, and a 250km stage with the same profile.

I understand that they want a close race for the majority of the three weeks. Fair enough; therefore no significant amount of time trialling early. But on stage 20 give us more than 23kms!! It won't harm the prospect of Quintana being within a minute of Froome at that point in the race (in fact he may attack sufficiently successfully to be minutes ahead because of it, even better), but a 23 km ITT may mean that he attacks from distance on one mountain stage beforehand. A 53 km ITT may mean that he attacks on three mountain stages beforehand. A longer final time trial would give us a better spectacle overall.

Anyway, rant over. The rest of the route is really good. Just checked out the gradients for stage 9. Struth!

 

[railxmig]

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.

Sorry, but i wasn't even talking about linking MdC with Biche-GC. If you want to link MdC used in this stage (west side) then propably the best approach would be to use Epine from south. I never thinked of doing a stage like ASO did because Biche-GC (quite good set of climbs nontheless) would be kind of wasted. Biche would be much better this year with for example using Richemond before it, then the descent straight to Culoz and only then the side from Anglefort. My post was awful and i see the likes of LS tearing it apart.

As for the GC. I don't mind Froome winning it yet again. If he's the best all-rounder then he deserves to win the GC (yes, i know there's clinic but that's for another forum section). Of course nowadays flat stages don't generate any time diffs outside of possible wind or difficult surface so the best GC guy in my book must have a good TT to climb ratio. If somebody is good in only one discipline then he needs to be more creative. Sadly my utopian race is mostly runed because of the domestiques quality who can control a lot of different stages and there's not many main GC threats who have weak team. Still, Froome is no younger and i expect a decline in a couple of years because of his age. Then either there'll be other dominant rider or a much closer stack like it was in 2011.

 

[Pennino]

cap the teams at 6 (maybe 7 riders).

but bring back a traditional tdf.

1. No way one team can control
2. Strongest rider is crowned
3. Many fewer favorites crashing in the first week

problem solved.

mic drop.

This. And I would say point 3 maybe is the most important in this. All this nervous racing in the first week is simply horrible. Fingers crossed in front of the tv, pissing your pants at every roundabout, every road narrowing obstacle. Even when not crashing, every single favourite is spending so much energy on this. Just crazy.

 

[SergeDeM]

Re:

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

I don't think he's saying that it's too much for the Tour. He's saying it's too much for him, as in for him to really contend for the win.

 

[Jungle Cycle]

there is the route and there is the race, how its ridden.. still waiting for more(!?) opinions on the route to give a note but its clear it could have a bigger final itt. around 40k would've been good.
No matter what Froome+Sky will be the favorites but i think it'll be more players with the "new" gc formations witch can make up to a more gc entreating tdf.
Plus, maybe(!?) with the prologue and more predictable 1st week it can be "less crazy" with so many teams shooting for yellow and hopefully no gc accidents..
I know this year was a record of no abandons until the 8th or 9th but was not free of crashes...

 

[SergeDeM]

Re: Re:

...
Why design the route to assist the French anyway? I mean why now? Because look at the Tours of the mid to late '90's with Richard Virenque, surely on balance a better climber than Bardet. Yet those routes continued to have 2 long flat ITT's to assist the likes of Ullrich, and on such parcours Virenque had no chance. Obviously they didn't design those routes to assist their favourite riders; they designed them for the good of the race as a whole. Why become biased now?

Also, if ITT's really are that boring for the general public, but ASO feels compelled to have one, then why not have just 1, and make it really long? Why give us 2 'boring' stages when you don't have to?? In addition to this, why not include ITT's just because they are apparently boring? Flat stages are boring, yet we of course see plenty of those. If it was ALL about television ratings then ever stage would have some sort of an uphill finish, or at least finish soon after a difficult climb. We don't see that, so it isn't all about the ratings. And if you have more ITT's then you don't necessarily take away from the number of mountain stages.

So make the time trial long. If 20 kms bores you, then why not be bored for 50 kms? It's still one wasted race day (to the time trial haters) regardless. It's like comparing the difference between a 150km pancake flat stage, and a 250km stage with the same profile.

I understand that they want a close race for the majority of the three weeks. Fair enough; therefore no significant amount of time trialling early. But on stage 20 give us more than 23kms!! It won't harm the prospect of Quintana being within a minute of Froome at that point in the race (in fact he may attack sufficiently successfully to be minutes ahead because of it, even better), but a 23 km ITT may mean that he attacks from distance on one mountain stage beforehand. A 53 km ITT may mean that he attacks on three mountain stages beforehand. A longer final time trial would give us a better spectacle overall.
...

Re the French, because it's now been too long since the last French tour winner. In the 90s, the memories of Hinault and Fignon were still fresh and they didn't think they'd have to wait so long for a replacement. Right now, if not an outright win, at least some podium placings are available with reduced timetrialing.

Re the ITT, yes it's just as boring as a single day if the ITT is 23 or 100 Km, but the longer it gets the more it affects the rest of the tour. If we had routes like the 90s now it would be Indurain (Froome) vs Chiapucci (Quintana) all over again, and barring exceptional circumstances the end result would practically be set in stone before the race even started.

ASO's decision process is, Do we want the best all rounder to win regardless of the resulting time difference? or do we want the show to be exciting by trying to give a fighting chance to more top riders? If you are running a business then you have to go with the option that gives the best return, and that's the second one.

 

[hrotha]

In the days of Virenque, this kind of route wouldn't have flown. It's taken them many years to accustom the public (and the journalists, and themselves) to the idea that ITTs are superfluous and even detrimental.

ASO's decision process is, Do we want the best all rounder to win regardless of the resulting time difference? or do we want the show to be exciting by trying to give a fighting chance to more top riders? If you are running a business then you have to go with the option that gives the best return, and that's the second one.

And yet, Indurain's "uncontested" Tour victories were FAR more exciting than most of the Tours we see these days. Because Chiappucci lost, yeah, and maybe he couldn't have won regardless, but he did try, because if he didn't, he'd come in 10th or thereabout and be a complete irrelevancy. And when the likes of Chiappucci tried, we saw a far better race than nowadays, when more people may have a fighting chance, but they don't actually fight.

 

[Flamin]

True, hrotha. Worrisome that some people on a random forum are far more intelligent than the ones who are actually in charge. Of course that's not new, I know.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re:

In the days of Virenque, this kind of route wouldn't have flown. It's taken them many years to accustom the public (and the journalists, and themselves) to the idea that ITTs are superfluous and even detrimental.

ASO's decision process is, Do we want the best all rounder to win regardless of the resulting time difference? or do we want the show to be exciting by trying to give a fighting chance to more top riders? If you are running a business then you have to go with the option that gives the best return, and that's the second one.

And yet, Indurain's "uncontested" Tour victories were FAR more exciting than most of the Tours we see these days. Because Chiappucci lost, yeah, and maybe he couldn't have won regardless, but he did try, because if he didn't, he'd come in 10th or thereabout and be a complete irrelevancy. And when the likes of Chiappucci tried, we saw a far better race than nowadays, when more people may have a fighting chance, but they don't actually fight.

It's a mentality change that's the problem here, which is another issue altogether. And BTW most casual fans were bored out of their damned minds during most of the Indurain years. They weren't "far more exciting" to most. To hardcore fans of epic doped up performances, sure, but they have never been the TDF's core audience. Though some aspects were, of course, better back then. Others, like having like 10 pan flat stages in a row, as in 1994 ... yeah, no.

 

[hrotha]

I don't think the mentality is "another issue altogether", I think they're intrinsically related issues: riders tend to do what they need to do to get the result they want, and nowadays they have little reason to do anything but follow wheels and attack with 3 km to go (if we're lucky). And yes, the Indurain days were far more exciting. Not compared to the 80s - plenty of people complained about how cycling was getting too predictable and conservative back then -, but certainly compared to the 2010s and especially to this year's Tour. Indurain dominated, they weren't close races*, but people raced and attacks (even long-range) were commonplace.

Doping has nothing to do with it.

*In fact, the idea that a close race equals an interesting race may well be the biggest contributing factor to this malady.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

True, the 2012 Giro was extremely close, but was one of the worst raced GTs in the history of racing. I think a lot of the problem has been caused by a couple of races that should have failed massively but didn't.

The 2011 Tour was downright awful for two thirds of it. Completely backloaded, apart from a few seconds collected in to Mûr-de-Brétagne and the farce with the crashes on Mont-des-Alouettes that led to a group crashing inside 3km to go blocking a group that crashed outside 3km to go, doubling their advantage to them, everybody was on their TTT times until over halfway through the race, except for half the GC field crashing out, because the field was nervous because of still having something to protect so everybody was trying to get to the front. The Pyrenees were raced extremely negatively to the point of pure tedium and Jelle Vanendert looking like the reincarnation of Lucien van Impe. With this in mind, when the racing DID begin, Schleck had failed to take advantage of terrain that suited him to the point where his only stylistic option for victory (remember, at this point he was not yet the winner of the 2010 Tour as the appeal was still going on) was the long distance raid. As a result riders who may otherwise have left everything to Galibier were on the rivet early, which meant that when Contador launched his attack the following day in the 110km stage, everything upped and exploded. This mean that the race ended with a series of really good stages that sorted out the GC, everybody left happy because they'd forgotten how boring the start was (much like the 2016 Giro in fact) and ASO thereby concluded that the ideal formula was to backload all the mountains, make the mountain stages really short and stick one TT at the very end.

Likewise, the 2012 Vuelta was born out of a complete folly, the idea that as the Vuelta's mountain stages weren't producing the kind of time gaps expected in the period since Operación Puerto had shorn the Spanish péloton of many of the climbers capable of overcoming the time gaps produced in the comparatively long TT mileage since then, rather than produce better mountain stages, they'd produce more mountain stages, but because there were so many stages with these tough finishes, so that the route wasn't too brutal, they'd be relatively short and not include too many mid-stage obstacles. This led to a farcical route with a dozen uphill finishes and barely any time trialling, but with most stages coming down to the final climb. However, due to Contador's ban during 2012, Rodríguez targeting Giro-Vuelta after the Tour route was so TT-biased, and Valverde messing up his peak, and thanks in no small part to only the last 90 mins or so of stages being broadcast in much of the world, the race was a huge success, with GC action nearly every day as the finishes suited at least two of the main protagonists, as well as them being Spain's most recognizable and successful cycling stars. That race had no right to be a success, but it was, and organizers have gone back to that well too often too.

Anyway: the 2017 Tour. As you might expect: it's horrible.

Now, it's not uniformly horrible. The Mont du Chat stage is perfectly good even with the gap before the final climb (reminds me of the 2010 stage that included the Col de la Madeleine, which was a good stage).

The gap between the batch of climbs and the final climb is longer, but then the climbs before it are harder in the Mont du Chat stage.

The Pyrenees are execrable as usual. Would be much happier (though still not super-happy, at least it would be a change) if the Pau-Peyragudes stage went through Bagnères-de-Bigorre then either Aspin or Hourquette d'Ancizan (probably Aspin from this side, both cat.2), Col du Lançon (cat.2), Azet (1) and then Peyragudes directly - this would only be around 140k, but would have an ending that backs climb into climb well as well as doing something with Peyragudes other than what we've seen every time it hosts. Then the Saint-Gaudens - Foix stage could be freed up to use the Col de Menté (from its harder West side) and Portet d'Aspet before the main climbs of the existing stage (possibly excluding Latrape depending on what ASO want to do climb-wise).

The stages to Rodez and Le Puy-en-Velay seem to have some potential, but once we're into the Alps, I'd prefer to see La Mûre direct to Izoard if we're keeping the MTF there, go over something like Col du Noyer early (cat.1) to get a strong break, down via Col du Festre to Gap, Col de Manse (cat.2), Col de Pontis (2), then Vars-Izoard. Then Briançon to Serre-Chevalier, if the Lautaret tunnel is open then Lautaret - Glandon - Mollard - Télégraphe-Galibier is perhaps best, if not, Montgenèvre - Mont-Cenis (preferably via the steep and inconsistent Italian eastern side through Moncenisio itself) - Télégraphe-Galibier.

I think the less said about Liège and Planche des Belles Filles the better, really.

So, summary:
- Make Liège a legitimately hilly stage, don't be scared of 2010
- Make the run-in to PdBF a bit more interesting, congrats for sorting the pretenders from the contenders in week 1, but if it has to be that climb then at least try to thin the bunch before it
- Make the Périgueux-Bergerac stage an ITT down the N21 (45-50km). That's the only way that the Marseille TT being so short can be acceptable, with a 13km one to start and a proper length one in the middle, like the short TT that finished the 2009 Giro after the 60k Cinque Terre one for example.
- There must be more than one stage design available to a ski station situated where Peyragudes is?
- Foix stage is a joke
- Disappointing weekend stages on penultimate weekend yet again
- Swap the hosts around for the Alpine stages and you might get better stages, certainly less predictable ones
- Very disappointing final mountain stage
- 23km final TT is ridiculous when there hasn't been a proper one before it.

 

[Poursuivant]

Any of the stages liable for crosswinds??

 

[veji11]

Re:

Any of the stages liable for crosswinds??

The stages to Troyes and back have some moments on nice straight west/east roads exposed but sadly not as much as if they had crossed the plains north of Troyes, that could have been nasty.

Actually the penultimate stage between Gap and Salon de Provence could also offer terrain for that. But really crosswinds shouldn't be a big threat this year it seems.

 

[Poursuivant]

Re: Re:

Any of the stages liable for crosswinds??

The stages to Troyes and back have some moments on nice straight west/east roads exposed but sadly not as much as if they had crossed the plains north of Troyes, that could have been nasty.

Actually the penultimate stage between Gap and Salon de Provence could also offer terrain for that. But really crosswinds shouldn't be a big threat this year it seems.

Thanks

 

[Escarabajo]

LS nice summary thanks. Agree with most of what you said except for the stage 5 comments. I think I am fine with being an appetizer or introduction with only PdBF as the only hard climb.

I would add that looking at the parcours in more detail the riders are forced to race in medium mountain stages because there are just not enough mountains in the 2017 Tour. In theory, if Sky has a strong team for the medium mountain stages, then it will be harder to take time out of Froome. Usually the medium stages are the harder to control so we will see.

If I was the director and if I still want to keep his new trend I would make Stage 15 harder. As it is now is not enough to cause separation.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re:

I don't think the mentality is "another issue altogether", I think they're intrinsically related issues: riders tend to do what they need to do to get the result they want, and nowadays they have little reason to do anything but follow wheels and attack with 3 km to go (if we're lucky). And yes, the Indurain days were far more exciting. Not compared to the 80s - plenty of people complained about how cycling was getting too predictable and conservative back then -, but certainly compared to the 2010s and especially to this year's Tour. Indurain dominated, they weren't close races*, but people raced and attacks (even long-range) were commonplace.

Doping has nothing to do with it.

*In fact, the idea that a close race equals an interesting race may well be the biggest contributing factor to this malady.

Froome did build up a sizeable lead in every recent Tour that he didn't crash out of. So they did have to attack from further out on these supposedly horrible routes. They just didn't - or failed (Contador 2013)

The GC guys that could attack but didn't - or their teams - were not willing to lose in order to have a tiny chance to win, or just wanted to protect their GC. That's not new, but it's worse now. The only elite GC guys left with an old-school mentality are Contador and Nibali and both are past their prime.

2016 was a mess, but that was also because Sky was more dominant than USPS ever was. Relatively speaking, of course. I wish the UCI would focus on that. As a race organizer you can only do so much, unless you make it more unfair for everyone by making the race more of a lottery, by loading the route with unpaved roads or whatever. But Sky would have dominated on a 1994 route this year. No question.

 

[movingtarget]

Re: Re:

I don't think the mentality is "another issue altogether", I think they're intrinsically related issues: riders tend to do what they need to do to get the result they want, and nowadays they have little reason to do anything but follow wheels and attack with 3 km to go (if we're lucky). And yes, the Indurain days were far more exciting. Not compared to the 80s - plenty of people complained about how cycling was getting too predictable and conservative back then -, but certainly compared to the 2010s and especially to this year's Tour. Indurain dominated, they weren't close races*, but people raced and attacks (even long-range) were commonplace.

Doping has nothing to do with it.

*In fact, the idea that a close race equals an interesting race may well be the biggest contributing factor to this malady.

Froome did build up a sizeable lead in every recent Tour that he didn't crash out of. So they did have to attack from further out on these supposedly horrible routes. They just didn't - or failed (Contador 2013)

The GC guys that could attack but didn't - or their teams - were not willing to lose in order to have a tiny chance to win, or just wanted to protect their GC. That's not new, but it's worse now. The only elite GC guys left with an old-school mentality are Contador and Nibali and both are past their prime.

2016 was a mess, but that was also because Sky was more dominant than USPS ever was. Relatively speaking, of course. I wish the UCI would focus on that. As a race organizer you can only do so much, unless you make it more unfair for everyone by making the race more of a lottery, by loading the route with unpaved roads or whatever. But Sky would have dominated on a 1994 route this year. No question.

Circumstances effected the 2016 Tour. Quintana being out of sorts, Porte's puncture, Contador's falls and the fact that many riders were in a position to hit the podium for the first time like Yates, Mollema, Porte and Bardet. There were reasons why a possible first podium for so many riders was going to effect the racing and riders would not take many risks. I disagree about US Postal, I think most of Armstrong's wins were more dominant individually and team wise than Sky and Froome and look at the team Armstrong had. The two wet days late in the race plus the debacle on the Ventoux and the fact the whole stage could not be raced also had an effect. Froome had some luck this year but he also was the only one of the GC contenders to show aggression in the first week. Smaller teams does not mean Sky is weaker especially with the talent they have. Every team loses riders if the numbers are changed and the strongest team would still be the strongest. Froome will probably win one or two more Tours and I don't think there is much that can be done about it unless someone improves a lot and it would have to be one of the younger riders. The fact is that he is the strongest GT rider and does not really have any weaknesses.

 

[perico]

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.

Prudhomme ignores iconic MTFs in all regions. From La Plagne to Superbagneres to Luz Ardiden...

 

[vedrafjord]

I went cycling in the French Alps for the first time in my life during the week, and now that I've been 'on the ground' I'm starting to understand how many cool climbs there are that get ignored year after year. Alpe d'Huez should be banned for 10 years. They can go up to Oulles instead Drunk spectators won't be a problem because they'll have fallen off the barrier-free roads down to the valley hours before the race comes along.

 

[OlavEH]

Re: Re:

Prudhomme ignores iconic MTFs in all regions. From La Plagne to Superbagneres to Luz Ardiden...

Luz Ardiden is used from time to time. Though not often....

I'm more suprised that ASO so rarely uses the climbs to the ski resorts in the Tarentaise valley. Valmorel, Les Menuires, Meribel, Courchevel, La Plagne, Les Arcs and Tignes. Usually there are several years between stage finishes to one of these ski resorts.

 

[Tonton]

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...