Tour de France 2016 route prediction

[Gigs_98]

Re:

I love the descent finishes, but they're placed wrong in the route, thereby risking to nullify their impact.

The rest is very very meh.

I understand your point with the first two descent finishes but the last two? The stage after the GC stage will be rather flat and morzine is the last mountain stage. Why should anyone hold something back there.

 

[pastronef]

Re:

Stage 15 is good, but i still prefer stage 8 ( dam, it's too early!)

-Col du Tourmalet: 19 km al 7,4% (2.115 m);
-Hourquette d'Ancizan: ; 10km al 7.5%
-col de Val Louron-Azet: 10,7 km al 6.8% (1.580 m);
-col de Peyresourde: 7,1 km al 7.8% (1,569 m)

Great

the trio Hourquette-Azet-Peyresoude is very nice. I had to take a look at google maps to see the exact route. 3 nice cols in 30 km as the crow flies
Hourquette has a very narrow road

 

[Valv.Piti]

Re: Re:

The ITT is not flat, Gigs.

Yep, I just saw it. That definitely makes the route worse, but I still like it. Maybe you can add the lack of medium mountain stages to the list too, because besides stage 5 I don't see many.

I would categorize the stage in the Juras as that as well and having one in the Massif and Juras surely is better than what we get in average? On top of that, its two good designs, tho the stage to Le Lioran is to 'easy' in the ladder part for my taste.

I think its a little bit like with the Cividale stage in the giro. People call it a medium mountain stage only because the climbs aren't that famous and not very high. Moreover People generally like to call stages in low mountain ranges "medium mountain stages" simply because they aren't in the alps/pyrenees. In fact this stage has two first category climbs near the finish, and if a alps stage would have such a finale nobody would even doubt calling it a mountain stage.
And I also don't think that the number is above average. The tdf normally has 2-3 medium mountain stages (I'm not talking about hilly stages with one short steep ramp at the end) and even that isnt enough imo. The giro often shows us how its done. Next years edition could be a great example with a very high number of medium mountains

Well, it isnt high mountains and the way they are climbing Colombier isnt exactly super tough compared to what it could have been. But my point is, 2 good stages in 2 different lower mountain ranges shouldn't come of us a disappointment, the Massif due to its early placement and the Colombier-stage.

 

[Beech Mtn]

Re: Re:

God forbid that Quintana actually has to earn his Tour win.

+1. If Froome still wins then the next route will consist of 20 MTTs + Paris stage

Thumbsuckers of the world unite!! The Tour routes have occasionally historically been altered to sometimes make the outcome less than obvious, based on the skillset of the dominant rider of that period. Also, why wouldn't they make the route pro-French (Pinot/Bardet) when they finally have young riders that can somewhat compete with the elite gc riders. If it seems to favor Quintana then that is a coincidence. Froome would be the favorite no matter what parcours they come up with unless it's all cobbles and short steep Muur's. I get the impression from you two that any course that gives Froome's rivals a fighting chance isn't a true/legitimate course but who are you to decide? The Tour routes have evolved over time as have the distances of the stages.
There is no etched in stone format/rule that says the route should include 100+ kms of tt's.

Is hrotha is a Froome fan now? This is almost as good as that time he got accused of being a Contador fan

 

[Velolover2]

I have to have this question answered. Which TT is the hilliest? They are about the same length.

Giro, stage 9

vs.

Tour, stage 13

The Giro TT looks more wavy but the one in the Tour might have harder climbs but more flat. Please help find out. Are there any profiles with gradients or something?

 

[52520Andrew]

Some nice things I liked about the route, Bisanne is great, I like the Lioran stage, I thought they did great in the Pyrenees. Love that we hit the Grand Columbier but they could have done that better, I mean there is a perfectly good road that descends right into Culoz and the distance from Anglefort to Culoz is roughly the same as to the start of La Biche. Also a lot of flat between climbs in the alps.

 

[GuyIncognito]

Re:

I have to have this question answered. Which TT is the hilliest? They are about the same length.

(snip)

The Giro TT looks more wavy but the one in the Tour might have harder climbs but more flat. Please help find out. Are there any profiles with gradients or something?

You have the elevation and distance on those pictures. The Giro's climbs gain slightly more elevation over the same distance

 

[hrotha]

Re: Re:

Is hrotha is a Froome fan now? This is almost as good as that time he got accused of being a Contador fan

I have Contador, Valverde and now Froome.

 

[damian13ster]

Re: Re:

God forbid that Quintana actually has to earn his Tour win.

+1. If Froome still wins then the next route will consist of 20 MTTs + Paris stage

Thumbsuckers of the world unite!! The Tour routes have occasionally historically been altered to sometimes make the outcome less than obvious, based on the skillset of the dominant rider of that period. Also, why wouldn't they make the route pro-French (Pinot/Bardet) when they finally have young riders that can somewhat compete with the elite gc riders. If it seems to favor Quintana then that is a coincidence. Froome would be the favorite no matter what parcours they come up with unless it's all cobbles and short steep Muur's. I get the impression from you two that any course that gives Froome's rivals a fighting chance isn't a true/legitimate course but who are you to decide? The Tour routes have evolved over time as have the distances of the stages.
There is no etched in stone format/rule that says the route should include 100+ kms of tt's.

Of course there isn't a rule. But considering the last year's route, the lack of 40-50km flat ITT is just plain stupid.
Any route in which no more than 1-2 skillsets really matter in 21 stage race sucks.

 

[Billie]

Re:

I have to have this question answered. Which TT is the hilliest? They are about the same length.

Giro, stage 9

vs.

Tour, stage 13

The Giro TT looks more wavy but the one in the Tour might have harder climbs but more flat. Please help find out. Are there any profiles with gradients or something?

two god awfull tt's. makes me sick tbh

 

[Velolover2]

Re: Re:

I have to have this question answered. Which TT is the hilliest? They are about the same length.

(snip)

The Giro TT looks more wavy but the one in the Tour might have harder climbs but more flat. Please help find out. Are there any profiles with gradients or something?

You have the elevation and distance on those pictures. The Giro's climbs gain slightly more elevation over the same distance

So the one in the Giro should be harder? It seems less flat but more lumpy instead of having real climbs.

 

[Brullnux]

1 medium mountain stage. 3 if you include Payolle and stage 2. 3. Why. The only stages to consistently deliver in GTs (actually, only the Giro uses them effectively) are medium mountain stages. And what is with having the only not mountainous ITT after Ventoux? Mont Ventoux should, IMO, be a spectacle. If weaker time triallists like NQ just try to follow moves instead of making them just to save energy for the next day then I will be sad and angry, nor so much with NQ but with ASO. It would be better if Stage 13 and 14 would switch. Also MTT is after a very hard MTF, so both time trials are after the two hardest MTFs. There is little point having such hard MTFs if you are just going to put an ITT after it.

OTOH only 4 MTFs! Stage 5,8,15 are really nice. Stage 20 is not bad. Not a big fan of Emosson or Arcalis and Lac de Payolle could be really bad.
Mont Blanc stage is good because Bisanne, and Ventoux is Ventoux.

 

[bp92]

Well, it looks like a pretty good Tour to me.

-Lioran is a good medium mountain stage.
-The Payolle stage isn't very good (could've used Tourmalet here, or add more mountains), but it's fine for what it is.
-Pau-Luchon with Ancizan instead of Aspin (no Aubisque though). Also it's the first proper mountain stage. I like it.
-Arcalís with Comella/Beixalís before. I don't really know how this might work in practice, but hopefully it won't be another PdB 2015...
-Mont Ventoux is a cool climb for a single-climb stage, but it might be unnecessary (given that the race has enough mountains as it is).
-Pont d'Arc stage seems like your typical Vuelta-style TT. Not very long and hilly (not sure how hilly from the profile though).
-Crazy Jura medium mountain stage. Might've been better if they picked the steepest side of Grand Colombier as people has said, but it's fine as it is.
-Forclaz-Émosson is fine for a third mountain block starter. Might be good.
-Megève MTT is cool, but it doesn't really help balance the race that much.
-Signal de Bisanne(!) debut, but too far from the summit finish to really matter that much. Hopefully something will happen in Amerands.
-Morzine mini-stage is really nice, with Ramaz added, but most likely everything will be decided in Joux-Plane anyway.
All in all I give it a 8. Some awesome stages, most of them well placed... but it's imbalanced as hell. Also no true queen stages (even though the Luchon and Morzine stages look awesome).

 

[yaco]

Too much whinging about ITT's - two ITT's with a combined 54km is enough, especially seeing one is a MTT.

 

[damian13ster]

Re:

Too much whinging about ITT's - two ITT's with a combined 54km is enough, especially seeing one is a MTT.

No, it might have been semi-decent if 54km was flat.
Putting a MTT there and hilly ITT does nothing to help balance the route so heavily geared towards climbers

 

[veji11]

Yes the route is excessively climber friendly, but at least it isn't an MTF fest like this year. A flat ITT, say 40ks, around Limoges and one les mountain stage might have done the perfect Tour : Lots of mountains, 100ks ITT (one flat, one hillyish, one cronoscalata).

But I can't complain, overall I like this route.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Re: Re:

I have to have this question answered. Which TT is the hilliest? They are about the same length.

(snip)

The Giro TT looks more wavy but the one in the Tour might have harder climbs but more flat. Please help find out. Are there any profiles with gradients or something?

You have the elevation and distance on those pictures. The Giro's climbs gain slightly more elevation over the same distance

So the one in the Giro should be harder? It seems less flat but more lumpy instead of having real climbs.

The Giro TT is much more technical, and far less suited to the specialists it seems:

The average speeds of that Giro TT will be pretty low with all those corners. I much prefer the Tour TT on first glance. Seems like a normal TT + some sections at about 5%.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

Too much whinging about ITT's - two ITT's with a combined 54km is enough, especially seeing one is a MTT.

You really don't get the point. A 10 kilometer MTT will surely create bigger gaps than a flat 10 k ITT, but the route has to be balanced, so riders get rewarded for their TT skills. TTing is just a part of gt racing and it should be important, which wasn't the case in the last few years.
Look at the giro 2013. The mtt was monstrous, but it still didnt favor TT'ers because the pure climber Quintana got even more time on Uran and decided the giro, which means that Uran didnt try a proper attack on the Zoncolan because he already knew that he doesnt have a chance. So the fact that one of the climbs is a MTT is definitely not a point why there are enough TT kilometers.

 

[rghysens]

Re: Re:

Too much whinging about ITT's - two ITT's with a combined 54km is enough, especially seeing one is a MTT.

You really don't get the point. A 10 kilometer MTT will surely create bigger gaps than a flat 10 k ITT, but the route has to be balanced, so riders get rewarded for their TT skills. TTing is just a part of gt racing and it should be important, which wasn't the case in the last few years.
Look at the giro 2013. The mtt was monstrous, but it still didnt favor TT'ers because the pure climber Quintana got even more time on Uran and decided the giro, which means that Uran didnt try a proper attack on the Zoncolan because he already knew that he doesnt have a chance. So the fact that one of the climbs is a MTT is definitely not a point why there are enough TT kilometers.

All this is true, but ASO doesn't want to reward the best GC rider. It wants a close fight for the overall win, and some tense battles during individual stages, so the tv-ratings will be high and €€€€€ come pouring in.
And that's far more likely with short - medium length hilly/mountainous TT's than with a long, flat TT. If you look at the 2013 TDF even a sub-par Contador came very close to Froome in the mountainous TT, but lost nearly 3' over a bit more than 30km in the flat one. Short and medium-length hilly or mountainous TT's are relatively favorable for Froome's opponents than for CF himself (i.e.: I expect him to gain less time than in a flat TT).

As a cycling fan, I think the hilly TT's is the better option for having an enjoyable tdf, but is an amateur of fantasy race designing, I think the plethora of mountain stages should be compensated with a long (at least 50km) flat TT and a rolling/hilly medium length TT.

 

[SeriousSam]

An MTT is great in its own right and I welcome there being one in the Tour but yeah, it absolutely isn't a substitute for flat TT kilometers.

But I suppose it makes sense if you want to keep the battle for GC exciting. Froome is more likely to be beaten in the mountains than on flat time trialling roads, even if he is the best climber and merely one of the best time triallists (at his best).

 

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

I have to have this question answered. Which TT is the hilliest? They are about the same length.

Giro, stage 9

vs.

Tour, stage 13

The Giro TT looks more wavy but the one in the Tour might have harder climbs but more flat. Please help find out. Are there any profiles with gradients or something?

two god awfull tt's. makes me sick tbh

Go to a shrink. Not good when you get sick from profiles of stages.
Fine profiles, lumpy tt's are fun, but in tdf a pancake flat Tt would've been better.

 

[Kwibus]

Re: Re:

Too much whinging about ITT's - two ITT's with a combined 54km is enough, especially seeing one is a MTT.

No, it might have been semi-decent if 54km was flat.
Putting a MTT there and hilly ITT does nothing to help balance the route so heavily geared towards climbers

It's also not an really hard hilly TT. It's hilly, but certainly not the hilliest I've seen.
But yes, it should've been flat.

 

[SeriousSam]

Was 2004 really the the last time the Tour featured a real MTT? Super excited there's one next year.

 

[Gigs_98]

Re:

An MTT is great in its own right and I welcome there being one in the Tour but yeah, it absolutely isn't a substitute for flat TT kilometers.

But I suppose it makes sense if you want to keep the battle for GC exciting. Froome is more likely to be beaten in the mountains than on flat time trialling roads, even if he is the best climber and merely one of the best time triallists (at his best).

I'm actually really happy about the MTT, I like it a lot. IMO the mistake was to not make more TT kilometers and not that they included a MTT. I also don't say that there have to be 100 k's of ITT's. 50 k's are absolutely okay, although I also wouldnt be angry if there is a little bit more.

 

[PremierAndrew]

Re: Re:

An MTT is great in its own right and I welcome there being one in the Tour but yeah, it absolutely isn't a substitute for flat TT kilometers.

But I suppose it makes sense if you want to keep the battle for GC exciting. Froome is more likely to be beaten in the mountains than on flat time trialling roads, even if he is the best climber and merely one of the best time triallists (at his best).

I'm actually really happy about the MTT, I like it a lot. IMO the mistake was to not make more TT kilometers and not that they included a MTT. I also don't say that there have to be 100 k's of ITT's. 50 k's are absolutely okay, although I also wouldnt be angry if there is a little bit more.

The 37km TT should either have been completely flat, or just as hilly but nearer 50km