Some rambling thoughts/ideas about parcours that I posted eighteen days ago:
Amongst all of the outrage of the first six stages of this years’ Tour De France, has been some enlightenment. We kind of learned something.
Merely reasonably hard mountain stages don’t make much of a difference during week one of a GT (or at least of the Tour).
What has been extra interesting about the lack of racing interest from these early mountain stages, is that they have been separated. Stage 2, 4, 6. There hasn’t been any obvious reason to hold back, given that each stage that followed was rather flat. We really shouldn’t blame the organisers too much for the bland outcome, as most of us were quite happy with this first week parcours when we first saw it. However, hopefully they learn from it for future editions.
It may sound like a crazy idea, but I think that’s only because it goes so much against tradition. My idea is that on the first Saturday and Sunday, on the first weekend, on stages ONE and TWO (not every year, but just on occasion) you ride into the PROPER high mountains.
I’m not talking PDBF (it deserves to be kept as 4 letters) here.
Either in the Alps or in the Pyrenees, you start with a MTF (HC or at least a genuine Cat 1), possibly only a single mountain stage; then stage 2 is a multi mountain, descent finish stage.
There are 21 days in a GT. The weekend stages should be emphasised more in terms of the spectacle. And the days before and after the rest days should be emphasised more in terms of the overall battle for the yellow jersey.
It is criminal that in this years’ Tour De France, that on stage 10, the stage after a rest day, after a full nine days of racing; on the first stage that actually changes it from just a stage race to a grand tour….
Well, look at that course design.
And then look at stage 11….
Basically the first two stages where you might be able to really separate the grand tour riders from the stage race ones, and you give us that.
Stages 10 & 11 are the biggest disappointment in this route. Relying solely on Mother Nature to provide the opportunity for any GC action.
As we have seen in some Vuelta’s, you don’t necessarily need the highest and hardest mountains in week three to produce great racing. Yet for the most part, we see ridiculously back ended GT’s (yes, the Giro is even as much to blame for this as the Tour). The hardest mountains, for the most part, would be better placed in week two.
The stages that I would be looking to highlight are stages 1, 2, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21. At least roughly those. That’s 10 stages; probably too many genuine GC stages, but you get the idea. Anyway, stage 21 (if we keep to tradition) is cancelled out anyway. I like the idea of stage 20 being a fairly big stage (ITT or mountain stage), but it shouldn’t be the hardest mountain stage of the race, and the days before it don’t need to be obviously decisive either. Maybe 2 out of 3 stages from 17-19 could be ambush type potential. But mostly they are stages that don’t discourage riders from attacking earlier in the race.
In many editions stages 8-10 and 14-16 would be in the two main mountain ranges (but in some editions the vosges, massif central, jura can be showcased). The template of hard MTF followed by descent finish works here, because even if the third stage in this mountain chain is a MTF, it shouldn’t detract from racing hard on the second stage, because the rest day comes between them.
Anyway, at least one of the first two stages of the Tour De France should either guarantee time gaps, or viewer entertainment, or both. So the somewhat forgotten prologue is obviously something that should be used regularly. Or you could just have a longer ITT. Occasionally you ride on the cobbles (I am not personally a big fan of this to decide the GC, but it does almost inevitably provide some entertainment and time gaps). Maybe on stage 1 or 2 the Tour could get really inventive, and have a stage that is like a mini LBL/Lombardia, say 220 kms long and with hills galore.
This is all only if they don’t start with my proper high mountains double shot.
Which may actually reduce our need to drink.
That’s it really. As many of 4 out of the 5 stages from 3-7 could be fairly sprinter friendly (with a hilltop finish in amongst it). If there are already significant time gaps then crashes may not be so much of an issue.
Outside of the course itself, as many have suggested, reduction of riders per team is obviously a potential way to make racing less controlled. To me, 6 sounds like a sensible number (and I’d keep the same number of teams, as less total number of riders in the race might lead to less chaotic mass crashes).
The other thing that I would consider, is giving serious time bonuses at the finish line. 30, 20, 10 maybe (and then even 6, 4, 3, 2, 1….though that could mean more crashes in a battle for positions). Think about it; a sprinter who gains an additional three minutes still isn’t going to be any sort of a threat for the yellow jersey, but it would give a genuine incentive for Roglic types to try to win as many winnable mountainous stages as possible. He could gain more than two minutes in bonuses, and make up for one bad day in the high mountains. And each stage in itself would be taken more seriously by the peloton (even those that finish at Mont Aigoual).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram