Tour de France Tour de France 2026 route rumours

[Rockestar_33]

Make stage 1 an ITT and its sooo much better.

Wash your mouth out

 

[hayneplane]

If they're going to have a TTT, have it like this. With the correct format and two hills.

It would have been even better if the first hill was a little earlier to really make it a tactical pickle for the teams, though.

It looks pretty good. Last 5kms could well be tackled in a few different ways by the leading teams for both stage win attempts and furthering GC longer term.

 

[ashhutch1997]

Let's hope the TTT in Barcelona isn't in the dark like last time lol.

 

[perico]

nope

the proper TTs for a GT would be

an 8km flat prologue
an 85km flat TTT
a 70 km flat ITT
an MTT
a 40km flat to slightly rolling ITT

Balance it with 2 very hard mountain stages on the level of Morzine 1983 or Sestrieres 1992

Prudencio,

No matter how hard you try, Big MiG ain’t coming out of retirement to shoot for #6

 

[Libertine Seguros]

So it's basically a leadout with the elites to drop their teammates with a puncheur stomp at the end. They're pushing how it's really cool that the favourites will get their own times and so will have to work from day one.

Strangely enough, an ITT would mean they have to work from day one, and have none of the drawbacks of a TTT. Funny that after the most ridiculously lopsided Tour in a generation in terms of team strength, they think the way to improve parity is to give even more advantage to the strongest teams.

The only cities allowed to host TTTs in France should be Paris and Montpélier (but only since 2010, ironically enough after the last TTT they hosted), because they fulfil at least one of the criteria for allowing a TTT: they have a statue of Lenin. Bilbao is the only possible host of one in Spain (and even then it's debatable because it was erected unauthorised).

 

[Gigs_98]

So it's basically a leadout with the elites to drop their teammates with a puncheur stomp at the end. They're pushing how it's really cool that the favourites will get their own times and so will have to work from day one.

Strangely enough, an ITT would mean they have to work from day one, and have none of the drawbacks of a TTT. Funny that after the most ridiculously lopsided Tour in a generation in terms of team strength, they think the way to improve parity is to give even more advantage to the strongest teams.

The only cities allowed to host TTTs in France should be Paris and Montpélier (but only since 2010, ironically enough after the last TTT they hosted), because they fulfil at least one of the criteria for allowing a TTT: they have a statue of Lenin. Bilbao is the only possible host of one in Spain (and even then it's debatable because it was erected unauthorised).

On a serious note though, what are people actually thinking about that rule. I dislike TTTs but I think this might be preferable compared to usual TTs and actually captures the spirit of road racing (a team effort to propelling an individual) quite well.

 

[Red Rick]

On a serious note though, what are people actually thinking about that rule. I dislike TTTs but I think this might be preferable compared to usual TTs and actually captures the spirit of road racing (a team effort to propelling an individual) quite well.

To me it's a gimmick that tries to shoehorn that generic element of cycling into the one thing that was meant to be explicitly different. TTTs like this are less unique than actual TTTs and if you wanna see the top guys flying up that final hill you can actually just make it a damned ITT.

 

[Gigs_98]

To me it's a gimmick that tries to shoehorn that generic element of cycling into the one thing that was meant to be explicitly different. TTTs like this are less unique than actual TTTs and if you wanna see the top guys flying up that final hill you can actually just make it a damned ITT.

I mean it's still a very different format compared to any other kind of stage. I think it's the kind of thing where the original format determined what we see as a gimmick and what not. This format at least eliminates scenarios like a late puncture by some domestique directly leading to crucial gc time differences.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

On a serious note though, what are people actually thinking about that rule. I dislike TTTs but I think this might be preferable compared to usual TTs and actually captures the spirit of road racing (a team effort to propelling an individual) quite well.

I recommend cleansing fire and the resurrection of the ITT as a concept.

If they're worried about gaps being too big, then there was once upon a time this thing called a "prologue" they could think about reviving.

Hell, an ITT around the finishing circuit from the Volta a Catalunya would be just aboout perfect as a way to start the race. But no, we gotta kowtow to the all-powerful big money teams and give them a headstart because heaven forfend we get any surprises or any riff-raff gets to hold the yellow jersey.

 

[Netserk]

I'll hand the mic over to toby:

To all those criticising this new format, I have something for you to consider.

Imagine that the format like it was today was what was traditionally done.

That, like all other stages, a TTT was about getting each individual to the line as quickly as possible but with the twist that he only started with his teammates instead of the whole peloton. After all, it is not quite that logical that in a race where the individual GC is the important thing, a rider must be doubly punished because he has a weak team, or worse, that he should suffer a big loss in the individual GC if he has a teammate or two who crashes or punctures along the way.

I have heard it said that applying the 'fourth man across the line' rule is good because it challenges the teams more than today's format and in some contrived way it brought some suspense because it added a bigger risk for the team if a crash or puncture happened. But how is that a good thing?

Imagine, as said before, that today's format was the trodden path, and then a race suddenly decided to run a TTT like how it usually happens.

THAT would cause criticism.

Cycling is a conservative sport, so I think it's sometimes healthy to consider the hypothetical scenario that a change happens in reverse of what is the case, if you want to really assess whether a change is good or bad instead of just falling into the automatic "all change is bad" mantra that prevails in our sport.

 

[Gigs_98]

Toby might be get little confused why some comment from 2023 got a like today.

 

[tobydawq]

I recommend cleansing fire and the resurrection of the ITT as a concept.

If they're worried about gaps being too big, then there was once upon a time this thing called a "prologue" they could think about reviving.

Hell, an ITT around the finishing circuit from the Volta a Catalunya would be just aboout perfect as a way to start the race. But no, we gotta kowtow to the all-powerful big money teams and give them a headstart because heaven forfend we get any surprises or any riff-raff gets to hold the yellow jersey.

What do you mean by this? It will be the first TTT in seven years of the Tour.

 

[RedheadDane]

What do you mean by this? It will be the first TTT in seven years of the Tour.

She also appears to think that ITTs have ceased to exist as a concept...

 

[tobydawq]

Toby might be get little confused why some comment from 2023 got a like today.

I've actually taken the very hard decision to turn off 'like' notifications. But I did get notified for Netserk tagging me, so the confusion is limited

 

[Libertine Seguros]

What do you mean by this? It will be the first TTT in seven years of the Tour.

And in the small group of ASO races, also Paris-Nice has had one each of the last three years. The Vuelta has had one almost every year. The Tour de l'Avenir had one every year from 2018 to 2023 and TWO!!! (in a one week race!!!) in 2022. It feels like it's on the rise and since the Hammer Series and the fact we know One Cycling Project is all about the big teams trying to ensure we cheer for teams and the same rotating cast of big stars can be at the front everywhere they go, implementing a format like this feels pretty in-line with that.

 

[tobydawq]

And in the small group of ASO races, also Paris-Nice has had one each of the last three years. The Vuelta has had one almost every year. The Tour de l'Avenir had one every year from 2018 to 2023 and TWO!!! (in a one week race!!!) in 2022. It feels like it's on the rise and since the Hammer Series and the fact we know One Cycling Project is all about the big teams trying to ensure we cheer for teams and the same rotating cast of big stars can be at the front everywhere they go, implementing a format like this feels pretty in-line with that.

I very much don't feel like it's on the rise...
In the 2010's there were A LOT more than recently.

 

[Rob5091]

Somehow the TTT in Barcelona will be organized chaos as they normally are in Spain.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I very much don't feel like it's on the rise...
In the 2010's there were A LOT more than recently.

# TTTs logged in CQ:

2010: 17
2011: 17
2012: 21
2013: 18
2014: 17
2015: 24
2016: 22
2017: 23
2018: 23
2019: 25
2020: 9
2021: 13
2022: 14
2023: 17
2024: 16

I feel that this was something that was on the rise pre-pandemic, the pandemic obviously dramatically impacted and reduced the number and now it's growing back up again. However, we should also be noting that the Hammer Series also has a disruptive influence on the latter 2010s' numbers and the pandemic killing off the Hammer Series has also reduced the number significantly.

 

[tobydawq]

# TTTs logged in CQ:

2010: 17
2011: 17
2012: 21
2013: 18
2014: 17
2015: 24
2016: 22
2017: 23
2018: 23
2019: 25
2020: 9
2021: 13
2022: 14
2023: 17
2024: 16

I feel that this was something that was on the rise pre-pandemic, the pandemic obviously dramatically impacted and reduced the number and now it's growing back up again. However, we should also be noting that the Hammer Series also has a disruptive influence on the latter 2010s' numbers and the pandemic killing off the Hammer Series has also reduced the number significantly.

I don't know about those numbers. A lot of them are definitely on a very low level and not in pro races (or women's racing which this discussion is not about).

In pro men's races, for example, I count 11 for 2016 and just 3 for 2024.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I don't know about those numbers. A lot of them are definitely on a very low level and not in pro races (or women's racing which this discussion is not about).

In pro men's races, for example, I count 11 for 2016 and just 3 for 2024.

I only used men's races, but definitely there are a good few in things like Continental Championships, regional Games and things like that in there.

Of course, the only just and proper number in stage races is 0. But I perceive them as being on the rise, every proposed revolution in cycling, whether it be from Vaughters, Cookson, McQuaid, Plugge or Velon, has wanted to see more of them because they want us to cheer the teams more than the riders.

I just don't see the point in running a TTT where they don't set the time from the team like this, it's like when they did the capped time gaps back in the day: they recognise that the TTT format is inherently unfair, so they manufacture some work-around to try to downplay its impact so they can keep the format in the mix and give the big teams their favour while simultaneously acknowledging the unfair impact of it on the race, when they wouldn't have needed to find a workaround if they just, you know, had an ITT or a road stage.

It's kind of like getting a creative cover-up job done on a regrettable tattoo. Giving credit to the artist for the cover-up job is fair, but it wouldn't have been necessary if the tattoo hadn't been regrettable in the first place.

 

[Red Rick]

I also think one of the few charms of an opening TTT is that it's one of very few opportunities for many riders to take a leader's jersey. And that also goes away here.

 

[tobydawq]

I only used men's races, but definitely there are a good few in things like Continental Championships, regional Games and things like that in there.

Of course, the only just and proper number in stage races is 0. But I perceive them as being on the rise, every proposed revolution in cycling, whether it be from Vaughters, Cookson, McQuaid, Plugge or Velon, has wanted to see more of them because they want us to cheer the teams more than the riders.

I just don't see the point in running a TTT where they don't set the time from the team like this, it's like when they did the capped time gaps back in the day: they recognise that the TTT format is inherently unfair, so they manufacture some work-around to try to downplay its impact so they can keep the format in the mix and give the big teams their favour while simultaneously acknowledging the unfair impact of it on the race, when they wouldn't have needed to find a workaround if they just, you know, had an ITT or a road stage.

It's kind of like getting a creative cover-up job done on a regrettable tattoo. Giving credit to the artist for the cover-up job is fair, but it wouldn't have been necessary if the tattoo hadn't been regrettable in the first place.

Well, they are not on the rise whether or not you perceive them as such. And thankfully so.

The regular TTT was in the mix independently of it being unfair or not ,so no, it's not a case of inventing a new format to keep the TTT in the mix and cover anything up. It's to actually make them a bit more interesting or fair. But no surprise you cannot just assess the two formats against each other but must shout about Hammer Series, Plugge, One Cycling and whatnot. Especially when it's an ASO invention and they are not in cohort with those things.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Well, they are not on the rise whether or not you perceive them as such. And thankfully so.

The regular TTT was in the mix independently of it being unfair or not ,so no, it's not a case of inventing a new format to keep the TTT in the mix and cover anything up. It's to actually make them a bit more interesting or fair. But no surprise you cannot just assess the two formats against each other but must shout about Hammer Series, Plugge, One Cycling and whatnot. Especially when it's an ASO invention and they are not in cohort with those things.

Where did I say it was a new format? I said it was an attempt to jerry-rig a fix for a format that already has a less flawed equivalent they could have used instead.

Again, I ain't giving credit to them for fixing mistakes that didn't need making in the first place.

 

[tobydawq]

Where did I say it was a new format? I said it was an attempt to jerry-rig a fix for a format that already has a less flawed equivalent they could have used instead.

Again, I ain't giving credit to them for fixing mistakes that didn't need making in the first place.

It is a new format...

 

[Libertine Seguros]

It is a new format...

It's a Team Time Trial. All that's changed is that they've decided to give everybody their individual times. The flaw of being held to your fifth strongest TT rider is removed, but the flaw of giving explicit favour to the riders on the richest teams remains unaffected.

They could do the exact same thing without any of the drawbacks in, you know, an Individual Time Trial.

They don't need to reinvent the wheel, just do better with the material they have at their disposal. But they're more interested in making sure that the pundits - and us - have something to talk about during the broadcast while nothing happens in the race than they are making the broadcast more interesting.