Tour de France Tour de France 2022 route rumors thread.

[Red Rick]

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.

Tignes and Andorras are indeed perfect examples of crap stages with 4500m of climbing.

I don't wanna complain about the Hautacam stage cause it's pretty good, but the Pyrenees would be so much better if they had used the same MTF as in 2019 after Mur de Peguere and then turned the Peyragudes stage in a descent finish.

 

[yaco]

Rewatching the 1991 TDF the first ten stages had 2 ITT's, a TTT and seven flat stages - ASO do much better with route design today.

 

[OlavEH]

Was looking at the Tours in the 1990s now. Interesting to see how the route design was back then. It's pretty uniform, and most of the forum here would have complete meltdown (unless those guys who absolutely want 100+ km of ITT) if they designes the Tour identical to some the the versions in the first half of the 90s. Just to summarize some of those versions:

1990:

• First 8 stages plus prologue is flat or time trialing.
• Only two proper Alps stages. One 118 km stage to St.Gervais and a Huez MTF via Madeleine and Glandon.
• Only two Pyrenees stages, of which one is a stage to Pau via Aubisque and Marie Blanque.
• The only redeeming quality is a MTT to Villard de Lans and two fairly decent Massif Central stages.

1991:

• First 11 stages (!!) plus prologue is flat or time trialing.
• Two Pyrenees stages, one downhill finish to Jaca via Somport and a BIG 232 km stage via Aubisque, Tourmalet, Aspin to Val Louron.
• Three Alps stage. One 125 km stage from Gap to Alpe d'Huez, one downhill finish to Ax les Bains from Revard and a 255 km stage to Morzine via Joux Plane.

1992:

• None proper Pyrenees stages. The closest is a stage from San Sebastian to Pau via Marie Blanque.
• That massive 255 km mountain stage from St.Gervais to Sestriere mentioned above.
• The only real mountain stage besides that is a Alpe d'Huez MTF via Galibier and Croix de Fer.

1993:

• First 8 stages plus prologue is flat or time trialing.
• Only two Alps stages. First a downhill finish to Serre Chevalier from Galibier, then the Serre Chevalier to Isola 2000 stage via Izoard, Vars and Bonettte.
• Two long Pyrenees MTF stages, about 230 km each. But the first one has Ordino and Pal as the two last climbs. The second is better with four big climbs before ending at Pla d'Adet
• A last Pyrenees stage via Tourmalet and Aubisque to Pau.
• I can't see one single truly hilly stage.

1994:

• First 10 stages plus prologue is flat or time trialing.
• Two Pyrenees stages. First is a monoclimb stage to Hautacam. Then Luz Ardiden via Peyresourde, Aspin and Tourmalet.
• Ventoux descent finish to Carpentras.
• Alps has four stages. First Alpe d'Huez from south via Ornon, then Val Thorens via Glandon and Madeleine, descent finish to Cluses from Colombiere. Then a 47 km MTT to Avoriaz.

So there are some big and even massive mountain stages here. Especially the Sestriere stage in 1992 and the ~230 km stages to Val Louron and Pla d'Adet. And the MTT to Avoriaz. Otherwise it's pretty thin. Usually only 2 or 3 mountain stages each version that really counts. The 1992 version except that Sestriere stage contains close to nothing. 1991 has 12 days of flat or TT first. 1993 has 4 fairly big mountain stages, but nothing besides that. Even if the routes the last years has it's shortcomings, in total they are better than this.

The Alps are actually not too different from the later years, with a few exceptions like the 1992 Sestriere stage. Alpe d'Huez was used in a similar manner then as now, typically with Galibier and Croix de Fer first. And most of the long and very long mountain stages usually have more valley and more flat, not more climbs. Like the 255 km stage to Morzine in 1991 which is listed to have only 3 climbs; Aravis, Colombiere and Joux Plane.

The main diffrence for the mountain stages seems to be in the Pyrenees. Then there usually were only two Pyrenees stages, where one of the was a big or massive stage which was a lot longer with more height meters than today's stages in the Pyrenees.

 

[Fyr3]

I do not mind when a rider is able to dominate in the end but I rather they make the big move and gaps on stage 18 than stage 8. I think its nice if we have the "unipuerto stages" in the first week and a half (PDBF, Puy Mary, etc) and then in the latter part of week 2 / week 3 move towards the big stages (alpine giants, altitude and so forth.)

I think the best routes are ones that allow a rider like Julian Alaphilippe to be in contention from early on and force riders to choose their peak wisely, such that they are able to follow that kind of rider well enough in the first part of the race while being able to still be at their best in the latter stages.

 

[Ricco']

That kind of comparisons are interesting but one thing we don't account for is overall preparation and quality of the roads and equipment.

In MTB and CX there is always a lot of talk about how the sport has evolded and the courses have changed with the development of new equipment and the increase in overall skill of the riders. But how have the stages evolved in road cycling to new equipment that made climbing mountains so much easier (lighter frames and wheels, aerodynamic construction and testing, improved gearing ratios) and more professionalism of the riders (advancements in nutrition, training, ability to constantly check heart rate and power output and overall detection of talent with more nations being scouted for)?

I think the decrease in difficulty provided by these advancements hasn't been followed in the same proportion by an increase in the difficulty of the stages.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Key differences with the early 90s obviously being that you didn't need to purposefully design for aggressive racing the way you need to now, and that the technological standards of the time, racing attitudes and rider types called for a different TT/climbing balance. Moreover, some of these Tours still would have been better in recent times than at least the 2009, 2012 and 2017 routes - heck, the 1991 route has better-paced mountain stages than many modern routes in an era when the order of mountain stages didn't matter that much. Also, the 92 Tour is commonly accepted as a disaster of a design with the excessive amount of stages abroad in addition to the lack of real mountain stages.

That being said, it's definitely a good thing that designs outside of the big mountain ranges have become significantly more varied, even if ASO are still usually too scared to make these potentially important GC days. It's easy to only remember the things that were better in the past for cycling as much as for anything else even when there are also lots of things that have improved. And that's still true when taking into account the weaker set of designs we've seen of late.

 

[gregrowlerson]

The Tour actually bothering to include a number of medium mountain stages has of course been the biggest positive in recent routes (and yes, that even includes PDBF).

That doesn't need to be at the expense of proper high mountain stages though (nor of ITT). I'd much rather have 5 high mountain stages with 1 x 220-30 kms and 2 x 190-210 kms, then have 7 stages that are high mountain stages more or less in terminology only.

 

[roundabout]

1992 was imho an interesting experiment which probably won't work today, but still

the first bunch sprint was stage 10

the next and the last one was in Paris

 

[houtdffan]

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

The 1992 stage was so hard because the racing started half way up the Iseran, and the race was in 1s and 2s up Mt Cenis

 

[houtdffan]

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.

That's a shame a stage like that won't happen, as it is a proper queen stage in terms of length and climbing. Also favors long range attacks on the Finestre (riders wouldn't be fresh like in the Giro Finestre stages) and have the gaps slowly grow on Sestrieres

Hope Morzine 2006 isn't the hardest we see... that's the same as the 2000 stage, or the final 2/3 of the 1983 Morzine stage (cutting off the Glandon and Madeleine)

 

[yaco]

1992 was imho an interesting experiment which probably won't work today, but still

the first bunch sprint was stage 10

the next and the last one was in Paris

This was because often in these stages there was no break until after 100kms - You even had stages where they were averaging 32/33km on flat stages for the first 2 hrs - So many 'piano' stages and the racing often started when there was live TV coverage - You also have to wonder whether the sprint teams had the strength or the desire to bring back the breaks

 

[rghysens]

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.

Even that would be deemed too hard. Currently a stage from Briancon to Isola 2000 would consist of Vars, Bonette and the final climb at best.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

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.

Tour de France 2022 route review - La Flamme Rouge

After the Giro d’Italia 2022 review it’s time to review the Grand Boucle. As usual, like the Giro, and every other UCI race, you can find the stages on our website (and this is even more important than the Giro considering that for TDF all the profiles are out in end of May / beginning […]

blog.la-flamme-rouge.eu

Tour de France 2022

Route of Tour de France 2022 tracked with La Flamme Rouge editor.

www.la-flamme-rouge.eu

These stage profiles are pretty much dead-on, IMO.

 

[OlavEH]

I think the decrease in difficulty provided by these advancements hasn't been followed in the same proportion by an increase in the difficulty of the stages.

And by difficulty you mean length of stages and/or height meters? In some way the Tours are more difficult. Those versions in the 90s rarely hade more than 6-7 hilly/mountainous stages. The 2022 edition has 13.

 

[OlavEH]

That's a shame a stage like that won't happen, as it is a proper queen stage in terms of length and climbing. Also favors long range attacks on the Finestre (riders wouldn't be fresh like in the Giro Finestre stages) and have the gaps slowly grow on Sestrieres

Hope Morzine 2006 isn't the hardest we see... that's the same as the 2000 stage, or the final 2/3 of the 1983 Morzine stage (cutting off the Glandon and Madeleine)

The stages you mention, like the 1983 Morzine stage and the 1992 Sestriere stage, have come so rarely in the past too, that this isn't you should expect each year. And the 7,5-8 hour stages won't come again, ever. But there should be 1-2 stages of the type I mentioned each year. Next year it could/should have been a Madeleine-Galibier-Granon stage and a 6-7 climbs (Aspet, Mente, Core, Latrape, Agnes, Peguere) stage ending with Peguere and a descent finish to Foix. And I think that they a couple of times each decade should have a ~220km, 5000 height meters mountain stage.

 

[OlavEH]

Even that would be deemed too hard. Currently a stage from Briancon to Isola 2000 would consist of Vars, Bonette and the final climb at best.

Yeah, that is a problem. And a big problem when they also "insist" to make the last climb or even last part of the last climb in just about every mountain stage.

 

[Red Rick]

The 1992 stage was so hard because the racing started half way up the Iseran, and the race was in 1s and 2s up Mt Cenis

That sounds like 90s racing. I feel that in this day the Iseran from the north would never do that much damage. Tempo climbs, especially climbs under 7% without any steep pinches just don't do much damage these days anymore.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

That sounds like 90s racing. I feel that in this day the Iseran from the north would never do that much damage. Tempo climbs, especially climbs under 7% without any steep pinches just don't do much damage these days anymore.

I'm not sure - it tops out at almost 2800m. They almost never do a halfway serious climb from the start, especially not at that altitude. I think a stage start from Val d'Isere over the Iseran would still do damage (if it was raced as hard as it was back then). It was probably mostly the altitude back then, too.

 

[Red Rick]

I'm not sure - it tops out at almost 2800m. They almost never do a halfway serious climb from the start, especially not at that altitude. I think a stage start from Val d'Isere over the Iseran would still do damage (if it was raced as hard as it was back then). It was probably mostly the altitude back then, too.

Pretty sure you have modern examples with Bonette in the Giro of 2016, which is a much harder climb than Iseran. It was also much closer to home, and about 60 guys went over Bonette together. That's generally how it goes on big climbs where they don't want to ride. You drop the non climbers and that's it. It's like having Galibier south early in a stage, it simply won't do much even if it's high. We've seen Bernal go all out on a climb at 3200 meters to drop lesser climbers but he couldn't because the climb wasn't hard in Colombia 2020.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Pretty sure you have modern examples with Bonette in the Giro of 2016, which is a much harder climb than Iseran. It was also much closer to home, and about 60 guys went over Bonette together. That's generally how it goes on big climbs where they don't want to ride. You drop the non climbers and that's it. It's like having Galibier south early in a stage, it simply won't do much even if it's high. We've seen Bernal go all out on a climb at 3200 meters to drop lesser climbers but he couldn't because the climb wasn't hard in Colombia 2020.

Sure, if they don't want to race even Madeleine from its hardest side won't cut it.

Tour mountain stages are typically raced very hard in the beginning, though. Any halfway serious uphill start will cause some problems at the Tour. Sadly, it almost never happens anymore.

Iseran south is 7% for the last 5.5kms or so and somewhat irregular. It's no Agnello or anything close, but I wouldn't call it soft. It doesn't have much in common with the high altitude power grinds in the Americas. Same for Galibier south ... if the stage start had been on the Lautaret.

I don't have high hopes for the 2022 stage - simply too much false flat before they hit Lautaret. The GC group will probably soft pedal the Lautaret - Galibier stretch now.

 

[OlavEH]

Anyone who has more information on the route they are using in the women's Tour next year? More specifically the stage in the image below. This is dirt roads, right? Could these sections be used in the men's edition within a few years?

 

[rghysens]

Anyone who has more information on the route they are using in the women's Tour next year? More specifically the stage in the image below. This is dirt roads, right? Could these sections be used in the men's edition within a few years?

Yes, this is a stage with dirt roads (the stretches with the grapes symbol). Let's hope they will be included in the mens Tour one day, but I wouldn't bank on it.

 

[OlavEH]

Yes, this is a stage with dirt roads (the stretches with the grapes symbol). Let's hope they will be included in the mens Tour one day, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Since they are doing cobblestone stages once every few years, dirt roads shouldn't be out of the question. As long as they are of decent quality and it's not a very high risk of punctures, I would actually prefer that before cobbles.

 

[18-Valve. (pithy)]

Anyone who has more information on the route they are using in the women's Tour next year? More specifically the stage in the image below. This is dirt roads, right? Could these sections be used in the men's edition within a few years?

According to Gouvenou they'll use the women's race as a test case. If the stage delivers then the odds of it happening increase. Supposedly.

 

[Red Rick]

According to Gouvenou they'll use the women's race as a test case. If the stage delivers then the odds of it happening increase. Supposedly.

Scenes when they give the women 5 climb 200+km mountain stages and if they deliver the men get to do them as well