Since we spend the last 2-3 months just about each year on discussions related to this topic, I think it would be interesting with a more general thread on the topic. What do we excpect, and what would make us satisfied. I can start with some ideas on what it would take for me to rate a GT route a perfect 10. The elements below are primary based on a Giro route, and secondly the Tour. For the Vuelta I would have somewhat different expectations and reasons to rate it a 10. So to get started.
1. At least 5-6 stages in the high mountains:
And by high mountains, I mean mountains in plural. A stage with only lower/easier climbs before a MTF to for example Pratonevoso or Oropa would not be sufficient to be included in this category. The stages should also be of different type (MTF, descent finish, etc) and distributed throughout the GT (although this is more elaborated in point 4). In the Giro, I would for example rated the mountains 10 if we had 2 big MTFs like a double Passo Lanciano in the first week and Monte Bondone the last week, a descent finish from a big mountain like Monte Grappa and two of this stages with big climb/smaller climb combo like Finestre-Sestriere and Fedaia-Pordoi. Especially in the Giro there should be at least two of the last kind of stages for a perfect rating. This is the most important point, I would deduct more points here than any of the other if the mountain stages were too easy and/or too similar.
2. Maximum number of (pure) sprinter stages:
Flat or more or less flat stages which ends in a big mass sprint should be limited. No more than 5 would be preferable. You could have a couple of extra which could end a in a sprint with a reduced peloton, but these should also be limited. If you had 7 almost flat stages and 3-4 more that could end in a sprint with a reduced peloton, I would have a hard time rating the GT a perfect 10.
3. At least 2 medium mountain/hilly stages relevant for the GC:
High mountains are good, but medium mountains should neither be ignored. And by relevant for the GC I mean something more than a Muro de Guardigrele finish or a similar medium mountain finish as Super Besse. The Torino stage next year seems like a really good medium mountain stage. And a hilly stage similar to those Tirreno stages that has prompted a lot of actions in the last few years. There should also be more hilly/medium mountain stages, but as stated at least 2 potentially very relevant for the GC.
4. A "correct" sequence of different type of stages:
Neither of the stages mentioned above would be top notch if the sequence of the stages were really bad. And of course the route should not be not backloaded. At least one of the high mountain stages and one of the medium mountain/hilly stages should be in week 1. And two or three more of these in week two. One should also avoid packing the high mountain stages with 3 or more tough stages in a row, and where the very toughest stage is the last. And avoid having big mountain stages the day before an ITT.
5. Something "extra" or original:
For a perfect route, we also need something extra. It could be a sterrato stage like the stages to Montalcino. Or a monster 250 km medium mountain stage with a load of climbs and a strategically placed tough climb in a suitable distance from the stage finish. Or something brand new in the mountains. Doing Col de la Loze, descending past Courchevel and climbing fairly easy section to Pralognan de Vanoise would be much more original than just paving the last few km from Meribel to Col de la Loze. But this point is less significant. If all the other requirements listed were fulfilled, I woudn't withdraw much without this point.
6. A suitable amount of ITT
This is certainly more important for some in this forum. I would say a suitable amount, given all the other listed points here were fulfilled, is perhaps 70-80 km. But if rest of the route was perfect, I wouldn't withdraw much if the number of ITT were signicantly lower or higher. Maybe I would have rated 9,5 if it were 30 km of ITT or 120 km of ITT, but the rest was more or less flawless.
1. At least 5-6 stages in the high mountains:
And by high mountains, I mean mountains in plural. A stage with only lower/easier climbs before a MTF to for example Pratonevoso or Oropa would not be sufficient to be included in this category. The stages should also be of different type (MTF, descent finish, etc) and distributed throughout the GT (although this is more elaborated in point 4). In the Giro, I would for example rated the mountains 10 if we had 2 big MTFs like a double Passo Lanciano in the first week and Monte Bondone the last week, a descent finish from a big mountain like Monte Grappa and two of this stages with big climb/smaller climb combo like Finestre-Sestriere and Fedaia-Pordoi. Especially in the Giro there should be at least two of the last kind of stages for a perfect rating. This is the most important point, I would deduct more points here than any of the other if the mountain stages were too easy and/or too similar.
2. Maximum number of (pure) sprinter stages:
Flat or more or less flat stages which ends in a big mass sprint should be limited. No more than 5 would be preferable. You could have a couple of extra which could end a in a sprint with a reduced peloton, but these should also be limited. If you had 7 almost flat stages and 3-4 more that could end in a sprint with a reduced peloton, I would have a hard time rating the GT a perfect 10.
3. At least 2 medium mountain/hilly stages relevant for the GC:
High mountains are good, but medium mountains should neither be ignored. And by relevant for the GC I mean something more than a Muro de Guardigrele finish or a similar medium mountain finish as Super Besse. The Torino stage next year seems like a really good medium mountain stage. And a hilly stage similar to those Tirreno stages that has prompted a lot of actions in the last few years. There should also be more hilly/medium mountain stages, but as stated at least 2 potentially very relevant for the GC.
4. A "correct" sequence of different type of stages:
Neither of the stages mentioned above would be top notch if the sequence of the stages were really bad. And of course the route should not be not backloaded. At least one of the high mountain stages and one of the medium mountain/hilly stages should be in week 1. And two or three more of these in week two. One should also avoid packing the high mountain stages with 3 or more tough stages in a row, and where the very toughest stage is the last. And avoid having big mountain stages the day before an ITT.
5. Something "extra" or original:
For a perfect route, we also need something extra. It could be a sterrato stage like the stages to Montalcino. Or a monster 250 km medium mountain stage with a load of climbs and a strategically placed tough climb in a suitable distance from the stage finish. Or something brand new in the mountains. Doing Col de la Loze, descending past Courchevel and climbing fairly easy section to Pralognan de Vanoise would be much more original than just paving the last few km from Meribel to Col de la Loze. But this point is less significant. If all the other requirements listed were fulfilled, I woudn't withdraw much without this point.
6. A suitable amount of ITT
This is certainly more important for some in this forum. I would say a suitable amount, given all the other listed points here were fulfilled, is perhaps 70-80 km. But if rest of the route was perfect, I wouldn't withdraw much if the number of ITT were signicantly lower or higher. Maybe I would have rated 9,5 if it were 30 km of ITT or 120 km of ITT, but the rest was more or less flawless.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram