Tour de France 2021 route rumors

Would love a stage 19 ITT then a multi mountain stage for stage 20. Would work better than the other way round as riders are wary of expending extra energy when they have a TT the next day and it gives the climbers a chance to claw their way back into the podium by going thermonuclear on the last day in the mountains.

Imagine the carnage we might have had if Astana still had an opportunity to unleash López again to rectify his TT disaster.
 
Wow! So Covid concerns and keep it inside of the borders?
No, it's because the football European Championship (which is held partly in Denmark) has been moved to 2021. Months ago, they agreed that it would still be possible to have both events right after one another, but then the Tour wanted to move the start date to a bit earlier, since, guess what, the Olympics have also been moved to 2021. :p
 
Reactions: RedheadDane
One thing is sure, it's going to be a bad route!
You are one of us now.

Christian Prudhomme, please give us plenty of flattish ITT kms, or at least enough to deter Superman from entering the race. 60+. 80+ if I've been a really good boy this year.

With some of these k's in the first week. And I'll have some multi col long mountain stages with that.

But it's probably easier - and in some ways more fun - to make a bad route.

If it's going to be bad, let's make it really, really, really, really bad; for the Libertine Seguros posts that follow.

So give us no early ITT, just some bunch sprints, for guaranteed unnecessary crashes and abandons. Then add a mid week TTT that gives Jumbo a healthy buffer so that they don't have to attack so much like they did this year. Every mountain stage to be shorter than 120 kms, and we have MTF's on Arcalis, ADH, PDBF, and on the penultimate stage we have the only ITT of the race, a MTT up the Tourmalet.

Surely somewhere along the way, we locate Red Rick's button.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I have pretty low expectations.

I thought they had agreed another finish up PdBF unfortunately as that is getting severely overused.

I would like a flat TT of a reasonable length before the mountains as that should entice more aggressive riding.

Would like a couple of stages with descent finishes. One which always tends to produce gaps is Morzine after Joux-Plane.

I’d probably expect a return to the Galibier and one of AdH/Ventoux.

In the Pyrenees I would not mind A3D after the Pailheres as that is a decent one two climb.
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
Rumours about Granon returning finally after 1986, that one after Galibier or Izoard would be great.
Granon is one hell of a climb, pretty much the Giau from the harder side, but at almost 200m higher altitude.

Source:https://www.dici.fr/actu/2020/07/21/hautes-alpes-vers-une-arrivee-tour-de-france-haut-col-granon-serre-chevalier-1420521
For the Pyrennes there are rumours about a hard mountain stage in French Euskadi, a possible MTF in Iraty on top of the Col Bagargui, Port de Larrau is also an option.


I have my doubts that there's enough space for an Iraty MTF, but who knows...
Souce: https://www.francebleu.fr/sports/cyclisme/tour-de-france-une-arrivee-a-iraty-1570817278
 
So that would be going south from Bretagne to do Pyrenees first before going presumably through the Massif Central before the Alps?

Basically all I want is a route with two ITTs without an MTT or TTT that is not backloaded on the MTFs. Especially climbs like Granon, they're so hard there's not that much point in putting massive climbing in front of them. Also I had Granon on my list of 'defininitely harder than Col de la Loze' climbs.

More French Basque Country is always better. Laurau is basically the GC except better at everything. If great it's greater, if *** it's slightly less ***
 
What about Ventoux? I expected it to return shortly after they couldn't climb the whole thing in 2016 and now that's already 4 years ago.

Aside from that, I find it interesting just how much the inclusion of a late TT would change to favorite status of one rider
 
Reactions: Sandisfan
I have pretty low expectations.

I thought they had agreed another finish up PdBF unfortunately as that is getting severely overused.

I would like a flat TT of a reasonable length before the mountains as that should entice more aggressive riding.

Would like a couple of stages with descent finishes. One which always tends to produce gaps is Morzine after Joux-Plane.

I’d probably expect a return to the Galibier and one of AdH/Ventoux.

In the Pyrenees I would not mind A3D after the Pailheres as that is a decent one two climb.
I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

Most of us seem to be in agreement of wanting more ITT kms, with at least some of those early in the race.

We usually get some descent finishers, like we did with the stage 8/9 one-two punch in the Pyrenees this year that was very good.

ADH wasn't in last year, was it? So it is an almost certain inclusion next year. Has it ever not featured in 3 Tours in a row?

Yep, AX3D after Pailhares is great, and welcome as a semi regular feature in TDF routes.
 
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).
 
I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

Most of us seem to be in agreement of wanting more ITT kms, with at least some of those early in the race.

We usually get some descent finishers, like we did with the stage 8/9 one-two punch in the Pyrenees this year that was very good.

ADH wasn't in last year, was it? So it is an almost certain inclusion next year. Has it ever not featured in 3 Tours in a row?

Yep, AX3D after Pailhares is great, and welcome as a semi regular feature in TDF routes.
So you're saying

Planche de belles filles

Peyragudes

Alp d'Huez.

Gap after Col de Manse

Lourdes sprint bunch sprint after Aubisque

Do I forget any classics?
 
Can we settle for ditching MTFs.
MTF's are fine. A little bit like dessert, you can't over do them, and you need to enjoy them at the right time.

Loze was pretty good this year (though I'm concerned that they've totally fallen in love with it, and may bring it back immediately in 2021), but it made stage 16 a total waste of time. Stage 6 was slightly too early I think and/or it needed a TT before it to create gaps to make attacks on it more likely. Stage 13 was at least good, and stage 15 was a bit disappointing, but has a bit to do with the strength of one team (though I know you also like using GC as a pass).

Does anyone know yet if the Alps will be before the Pyrenees? I feel like you can get a better race that way, as overall the Alps are usually a little harder, so doing it this way makes the route less likely to be backloaded. And if you are going to have ADH, I like having it as the first big mountain stage; stage 8 would be perfect, than a mountain descent finish the next day to lead into the first rest day.

ADH, whilst incredibly overused, is still one of the best possible finishing climbs (the climb itself, not how it links with other climbs, too much valley), because it is hard, but not too hard. It is hard enough throughout its entirely to encourage attacks, but never too steep to discourage those attacks either. The prestige of the climb also makes it better to not have too late in the race, so that riders aren't holding back for it. Even when the Alps followed the Pyrenees in 2006 for example, ADH was used perfectly; the first stage of three mountain stages. Even though the next two stages were also brutal, nobody held back on that first stage, partly because of the prestige, partly because it is actually a good climb to race on.
 
Last edited:
So you're saying

Planche de belles filles

Peyragudes

Alp d'Huez.

Gap after Col de Manse

Lourdes sprint bunch sprint after Aubisque

Do I forget any classics?
Hopefully they will circle back and do La Planche des Belles Filles again at the end of the race, something like stage 19. Maybe do it as a circuit, going up several times, to commemorate the PdBF Worlds that sadly never came to be. And then do a TT up the climb the day after.
 
What about Ventoux? I expected it to return shortly after they couldn't climb the whole thing in 2016 and now that's already 4 years ago.

Aside from that, I find it interesting just how much the inclusion of a late TT would change to favorite status of one rider
Yes, it's about time.

Also, what do people think about returning to Tignes (and finishing that unfinished stage after the Iseran from last year)?
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY