Tour de France Tour de France 2022 route rumors thread.

[Fyr3]

Honestly the main thing I want to see in the next years is more new / seldom used climbs than always the traditional ones. At least then there's an element of the unexpected at the finish. Climbs like:

• Mont Saleve
• Plateau de Solaison
• Plateau des Saix
• Col de l'Arpettaz
• Prapoutel
• Valmorel
• Valmeinier
• Vaujany
• Col du Mont Noir
• Col de Parquetout
• Notre Dame de la Salette

Many of which are feasible if we can have finishes at the Granon although I accept there isn't a sporting interest for some. Heck even bring back climbs that we haven't seen in ages, we all saw what stage we (should have) had over the Iseran in 2019...

 

[yaco]

250 km flat stages should not be in the race

However, 250 km mountain stages with 6 hard climbs are not piano rides. e usually get 3-4 hours of flat out racing in those stages

That is one stage in a 21 stage race - How about the other 20 stages.

 

[Red Rick]

I don't care about 250km flat stages. Just don't watch it lol.

 

[gregrowlerson]

250 km stage 7's helped the following stages in the Tour the past two years if I recall correctly.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

250 km stage 7's helped the following stages in the Tour the past two years if I recall correctly.

Stage 7 didn't help week 2 & 3, though, from Gouvenou's perspective. Gouvenou (and Vegni) want a close GC battle. When Pogacar destroyed the whole field on day 8 it was practically over.

 

[Red Rick]

Stage 7 didn't help week 2 & 3, though, from Gouvenou's perspective. Gouvenou (and Vegni) want a close GC battle. When Pogacar destroyed the whole field on day 8 it was practically over.

The whole close GC battle idea is so bad, because if one guy is just much better than the rest there's nothing you can do and you made a whole shite route for nothing. Small gaps lead to passive racing. The gaps were small in the 2020 Tour and I don't think many thought it was an exciting race to watch the first 19 stages.

The 2nd hilarious thing is that for 2022 they actually made the first mountain range way harder than the final one.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Stage 7 didn't help week 2 & 3, though, from Gouvenou's perspective. Gouvenou (and Vegni) want a close GC battle. When Pogacar destroyed the whole field on day 8 it was practically over.

I don't want a close GC battle, at least not necessarily. I want memorable stages. Stage 8 of 2021 Tour is possibly the most memorable stage of the past ten editions (with possible exception of PDBF).

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

The whole close GC battle idea is so bad, because if one guy is just much better than the rest there's nothing you can do and you made a whole shite route for nothing. Small gaps lead to passive racing. The gaps were small in the 2020 Tour and I don't think many thought it was an exciting race to watch the first 19 stages.

The 2nd hilarious thing is that for 2022 they actually made the first mountain range way harder than the final one.

They (meaning: Gouvenou) have drawn the wrong conclusions from the 2020 and 2021 Tours. I don't like the day 20 ITT preceded by a flat stage template, either. The additional flat stage needs to go. Just the Champs in week 3 is plenty. The 2nd ITT can be moved back, to the day after the 2nd rest day, for example.

Although there was all kinds of wrong with the stage designs of the mid 2010s TDFs there were at least a few Tours with back to back GC-relevant stages. If none of the podium contenders drop on Mur de Péguère, we could be looking at just 3 actual GC stages in week 3, for the 6th or 7th time in a row.

 

[OlavEH]

I must admit that I don't think we'll see any changes in the Tour route design in the forseeable future unless ASO suddenly hires an really innovative route designer who convinces Gouvenou and the other chiefs in ASO that a change is concept would be benifical. They are too sure that long and tough stages are more or less useless (and perhaps unwanted due to clinic issues), and they want to keep a close GC and therefore not include stages that could prompt big time gaps. The coming versions of the Tour will be more of what we've seen the last decade.

• The mountain stages in the Pyrenees will be centered around Bagneres de Luchon and the original circle of death climbs.
• The focal point in the Alps will be Alpe d'Huez, the Maurinne valley and the ski resorts above the Tarentaise valley.
• Newly additions like Portet, Loze and other will uses again, and perhaps we'll see a few more of the same type.

If they use the French Basque Country or the Southern Alps, it will probably be only once a decade or something like that for each of the areas. And we won't see any big 200+ km mountain stages with at least four cat 1 climbs or something similar. I will also be very (pleasantly) suprised if they to a big-smll climb combo like Bonette-Auron, Galibier-LDA, etc (perhaps except Pailheres-Bonascre). The best we can hope for the few next years is a that the generation of riders like VDP, Ala and Van Aert will give us more good hilly stages in Vosges, Massif Central and the Ardennes.

 

[Big Doopie]

The whole close GC battle idea is so bad, because if one guy is just much better than the rest there's nothing you can do and you made a whole shite route for nothing. Small gaps lead to passive racing. The gaps were small in the 2020 Tour and I don't think many thought it was an exciting race to watch the first 19 stages.

The 2nd hilarious thing is that for 2022 they actually made the first mountain range way harder than the final one.

same I think with 2017 TDF. trying to keep everyone close to Froome at the top. Small differences practically the entire Tdf. Result never in doubt tho. And nothing memorable at all.

“keeping it close” for added “suspense” never works and, yes, leads to passive riding, “not to lose”. I believe many fans here argue for it only because it might keep their personal favorite rider in contention.

 

[Nirvana]

The whole close GC battle idea is so bad, because if one guy is just much better than the rest there's nothing you can do and you made a whole shite route for nothing. Small gaps lead to passive racing. The gaps were small in the 2020 Tour and I don't think many thought it was an exciting race to watch the first 19 stages.

The 2nd hilarious thing is that for 2022 they actually made the first mountain range way harder than the final one.

If there isn't someone better is even worse because everyone wants to stay in contention as much as as possible and even an extremely hard route like the 2012 Giro produces *** racing with riders worried to attack because is too early if there are a couple of kilometers to go.

People generally don't like dominant showings but I prefer way more a rider winning by 10 minutes creating carnage with attacks on every occasion than a tight race with breaks winning everywhere and GC riders performing only uphill sprints on MTFs.

 

[houtdffan]

Doubt with Gouvenou we will ever see a stage nowadays like St Jean en Maurienne to Sestrieres over the Mollard, Galiber, Montvergine, Finestre, Sestrieres

Just curious, how long would that stage be and how many meters of climbing would that stage be? We talking a similar difficulty to Sestrieres 1992?

 

[Red Rick]

Doubt with Gouvenou we will ever see a stage nowadays like St Jean en Maurienne to Sestrieres over the Mollard, Galiber, Montvergine, Finestre, Sestrieres

Just curious, how long would that stage be and how many meters of climbing would that stage be? We talking a similar difficulty to Sestrieres 1992?

It would be way harder. Not sure why the 1992 stage is singled out? The Tour has had plenty of harder stages since

 

[OlavEH]

Doubt with Gouvenou we will ever see a stage nowadays like St Jean en Maurienne to Sestrieres over the Mollard, Galiber, Montvergine, Finestre, Sestrieres

Just curious, how long would that stage be and how many meters of climbing would that stage be? We talking a similar difficulty to Sestrieres 1992?

I got 217 km by mapping it. And about 6200 meters of categorized climb.

But that is (unfortunately) never going to happen. I think the toughest stages we will possibly see in the Tour the coming years would be something on the same level as Briancon - Isola 2000 in the 1993 Tour, the Morzine stage via Joux Plane in 2006 and the Pla d'Adet stages in 2001 and 2005. Not much harder than that.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

The Tour stage with the most climbing in recent times (post 2010) was the 2013 stage from Bourg d'Oisans to Le Grand Bornand (Glandon - Madeleine - Tamié - Epine - Croix Fry) IIRC

5567m in 204km, according to La Flamme Rouge

They have moved away from stages that feature well over 5000m of climbing though. No 5000m+ stages in the last couple years, period.

 

[Red Rick]

The Tour stage with the most climbing in recent times (post 2010) was the 2013 stage from Bourg d'Oisans to Le Grand Bornand (Glandon - Madeleine - Tamié - Epine - Croix Fry) IIRC

5567m in 204km, according to La Flamme Rouge

They have moved away from stages that feature well over 5000m of climbing though. No 5000m+ stages in the last couple years, period.

How many meters are the AdH and Granon stage this year?

To an extent I don't desperately need much over 5000m of climbing, because the right combination of climbs is more important and generally the bigger problem. The AdH stage once again shows they're not 100% against having 3 HC climbs in a stage.

I think the issue is more than when they have a stage like that that they then market as an absolute brute, the specific selection of climbs is often very underwhelming. In 2019 they ended with Galibier south as the final climb. In 2017 all out on Mont du Chat was a logical conclusion. Same for the 2018 AdH waiting game. The often referenced Grand Bornand stage of 2013, as well as the Bagnere de Bigorre stage of 2013, both with 5 climbs each, did have pretty bad pacing within the stage themselves, and ended up being the lamest duck mountain stages of that years edition.

That said, maybe the decision to go this direction is more recent and something that really started with the dank 65km stage in 2018 and didn't really get out of control until 2020 when the 2 biggest MTF stagse started with 100km of flat.

 

[Salvarani]

I dont think making the stages shorter or long and super-tough is the way to go.

Nice middle-ground with a variety of short, medium and longer stages is the way to go. Room for exciting racing and tactics is the best. Going over a lot of different terrain. At least 50-60km amount of TT. Pure climbers just have to deal with it. A complete and strongest rider should be the one that wins a GT.

I guess they want a spectacle and have to plan more for commercial aspects. I mean they also sponsors to deal with. Towns and areas that have payed for the Tour to pass by. It is probably not an easy thing to manage. They probably dont make the route, until everything else is in order logistically most of the time.

 

[Red Rick]

I dont think making the stages shorter or long and super-tough is the way to go.

Nice middle-ground with a variety of short, medium and longer stages is the way to go. Room for exciting racing and tactics is the best. Going over a lot of different terrain. At least 50-60km amount of TT. Pure climbers just have to deal with it. A complete and strongest rider should be the one that wins a GT.

I guess they want a spectacle and have to plan more for commercial aspects. I mean they also sponsors to deal with. Towns and areas that have payed for the Tour to pass by. It is probably not an easy thing to manage. They probably dont make the route, until everything else is in order logistically most of the time.

Yeah it certainly doesn't help that the richest towns in the Pyrenees and Alps are in the most boring area of them.

 

[Salvarani]

Yeah it certainly doesn't help that the richest towns in the Pyrenees and Alps are in the most boring area of them.

Yes, and they probably need most of that money to be able to arrange everything. Probably not an easy task with a lot of fees involved for the closing of roads and so on. Pay everyone involved. All the staff. While still making a profit I assume. It is still a business.

Oh, then there is the race.

 

[OlavEH]

To an extent I don't desperately need much over 5000m of climbing, because the right combination of climbs is more important and generally the bigger problem. The AdH stage once again shows they're not 100% against having 3 HC climbs in a stage.

I think the issue is more than when they have a stage like that that they then market as an absolute brute, the specific selection of climbs is often very underwhelming. In 2019 they ended with Galibier south as the final climb. In 2017 all out on Mont du Chat was a logical conclusion. Same for the 2018 AdH waiting game. The often referenced Grand Bornand stage of 2013, as well as the Bagnere de Bigorre stage of 2013, both with 5 climbs each, did have pretty bad pacing within the stage themselves, and ended up being the lamest duck mountain stages of that years edition.

Agree on this. I would say that limited action on most of these stages were as expected. Galibier descent is usually underwhelming, and the southern side of Galibier from Lautaret is too easy in terms of gradients and (good) road quality to be a good descent finish. The same applies for most of the climbs leading in to one of the two Bagneres in the Pyrenees. Portillon, Peyresourde, Aspon or Ancizan is not difficult enough neither uphill or downhill for being used for a descent finish. If we were to see action on a descent finish to one of these two towns, it had to be a GC situation where some of the favorites were desperate to gain time.

Mont de Chat on the other hand should be used again, but then with a more proper pacing than the last time. That climb as the last mountain stage of the Tour, but with only a moderate number of height meters earlier on the stage would probably be the best set-up.

 

[OlavEH]

Nice middle-ground with a variety of short, medium and longer stages is the way to go. Room for exciting racing and tactics is the best. Going over a lot of different terrain. At least 50-60km amount of TT. Pure climbers just have to deal with it. A complete and strongest rider should be the one that wins a GT.

I guess they want a spectacle and have to plan more for commercial aspects. I mean they also sponsors to deal with. Towns and areas that have payed for the Tour to pass by. It is probably not an easy thing to manage. They probably dont make the route, until everything else is in order logistically most of the time.

I guess it's mostly a combination of commercial and logistical reasons. Not all areas are willing to pay for the Tour stages which is why areas like the Southern Alps, Ariega and French Basque Country are very rarely used. And I also believe that they want to spraead the action on as many stages as possible and want to keep close time gaps in the GC. That's why they have many stages which could prompt action in the last few km, limit the amount of ITT and limit the stages which could create huge time gaps and tire the riders too much. They rather want 5 mountain stages with a racing time of typically 4 hours and action only in the last half hour rather than 2 big mountain stages of 6 hours and possible 1,5-2 hours of action.

 

[roundabout]

It would be way harder. Not sure why the 1992 stage is singled out? The Tour has had plenty of harder stages since

I honestly can't think of any.

79ème Tour de France 1992 - 13ème étape

www.memoire-du-cyclisme.eu

it's easily over 6000 meters of climbing plus the distance

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

How many meters are the AdH and Granon stage this year?

To an extent I don't desperately need much over 5000m of climbing, because the right combination of climbs is more important and generally the bigger problem. The AdH stage once again shows they're not 100% against having 3 HC climbs in a stage.

Right - it's an imperfect way to judge the hardness of a mountain stage, for several reasons. Le Grand Bornand and Andorra (2021) are prime examples.

the only stages >3000m:

Alpe d'Huez 4661m
Hautacam 4041m
Granon 4036m
Châtel 3695m
Mende 3499m
Foix 3422m
Peyragudes 3354m

2021:

Malaucène 4647m
Tignes: 4628m
Andorra 4572m
Col de Portet 4375m
Luz Ardiden 3561m
Le Grand Bornand 3557m
St. Gaudens 3260m
Le Creusot 3120m

I'm guessing the Tignes stage had way more actual climbing >5% vs. the Andorra and Ventoux stages, though. The Andorra stage in particular was low gradient central until the 2nd category climb at the end.

The 2022 Tour has the Arenberg stage, which is quite tricky, IMO. Could be why the Pyrenees are so soft this time, even going by recent trends. Plus that Gouvenou only seems to care about the Hautacam stage in that mountain block (going by the recent interview he did). They want the Tour to be decided in that stage - if not in the final ITT.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Have been out of the cycle the last couple of months and just looking at the Tour-route.

So obviously only able to actually see 1/3 of the stages as per usual (nice one ASO), but do we have some good estimates or even profiles of the intermediate, hilly stages? Feel like its kinda hard to judge a route otherwise.

 

[tobydawq]

Have been out of the cycle the last couple of months and just looking at the Tour-route.

So obviously only able to actually see 1/3 of the stages as per usual (nice one ASO), but do we have some good estimates or even profiles of the intermediate, hilly stages? Feel like its kinda hard to judge a route otherwise.

I agree 100% but that doesn't keep people away from criticising the race to death anyway.

But I actually think there were profiles made by one of those websites who are very nerdy about tracking stuff like that, this year. I can't remember where, though.