What is the perfect Grand Tour?

[sir fly]

Not sure about the perfect GT, but what I'd like to see in every GT is no less than 45 minutes of time trialing in a piece, a high altitude stage of over 200k in length and 5000 meters of (categorized) altitude gain and a Monument-like stage.
That kind of composition could be called an all-around test.

 

[Nirvana]

What's up with the hate of sprint stages? I mean the only sprinter I'm truely a fan of will probably never do the Tour and it's doubtful whether he does any GT soon, but... first I prefer a full bunch sprint to some stage that Joe Dombrowski, Patrick Konrad or, yes, Magnus Cort wins (sorry), yes, much of it is boring, but a sprint itself is anything but boring if there are some decent contenders, second they have always been such an important part of GTs ever since I have started to watch them... that a GT without them appears like whatever, but not a GT to me. The amount is already decreasing. And third I'm glad there are days I can tune in for 20 minutes at best without regret...

I like sprints but i don't like them in GTs because nowadays having them mean having a rest day for GC riders that don't even have to worry for gaps because everything is neutralized even well beyond what the rules says.

I think i've already said that many times, i'm in the "la corsa è corsa, pietà l'è morta" party so i'd like to count every single gap like it used to be and without fair play bullshits whereas lately we've even seen riders held behind a crash stop pedaling and throw themselves over riders crashed to be included in the neutralization like Contador in a stage of the 2016 Vuelta.

 

[KZD]

I think that a perfect GT route should be one that gives chances to every kind of riders.

There should always be a few sprint stages because although I am not really a guy that likes them very much I acknowledge that they the fastest guys in the peloton should have a few chances to shine but not more than 5 ideally and some of them with crosswinds in mind.

Then there should be around 5 real mountains stages with several climbs and also preferably a couple of long mountains above 2000m although this may change considering the GT that we are talking about, the Vuelta will almost always have less of these than the Giro and the Tour. Climbing variety should also be guaranteed with a few tricky descents along the way and in the case of one or two stages to the line. In addition to this, I don't mind a pair of uniperto stages that can finish in a long or short climb.

Hilly stages are behind time-trials the type of stage that recent GT's have been missing the most. Here, I am not talking about the uniperto supersteep finishes of La Vuelta or the ones that they sometimes find in the Tour but rather stages along the lines that Tirreno stage this year that under the right circumstances could make even more differences than mountain ones. The advantage of having around 5 of these stages is that it gives good chances to breakaways to suceed and less known riders to come to the fore and in addition to this I welcome a stage with 'alternative road surface' per GT.

Finally time trials. They have been despise by many but they are part of the essence of cycling. I like the idea of having two TT of around 30/35km in the same race one flat and one hilly, like in the 2013 Tour but total total distances of less than 50km's should be avoided because a Grand Tour rider should be able to right them well like they do in mountain stages. I also welcome a prologue, TTT or MTT once in a while.

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Most of this has been said already, but here's my two cents:

TT: should be constrained to 2 stages. The distances that were normal until 15-20 years ago are no longer viable due to the rise of trains, but average total distances have fallen too far in the past decade - a new balance needs to be struck. 5-10k opening TT + 50-60k later TT, 20-30k early TT + 35-45k later TT, or the latter distances reversed with a final-day TT all work. These distances are indicative and can be altered a bit depending on the amount of other rouleur-friendly challenges. The final TT should never be the final GC day, but also shouldn't be ahead of all the big mountain stages.

Early pacing: if the first stage isn't a prologue, it at least shouldn't be a freebie for the sprinters - at bare minimum, it should be something akin to the old Paris-Tours finale. There should be a GC-relevant road stage early, especially in the Tour, to limit crashes, with no more than two road stages preceding it. If the hardest MTF you can produce is a Montevergine or Orcières-type unipuerto stage, or if a MTF isn't possible at all, this should be a hard hilly stage, similar to or (preferably) a bit harder than Épernay in the 2019 Tour or Sheffield in the 2014 Tour, or even a mid-mountain stage like La Spezia in the 2015 Giro or Calpe in the 2019 Vuelta. If a MTF is possible, anything between a murito like Caminito del Rey in the 2015 Vuelta and a mid-length, mid-gradient MTF like the Etna finishes at the Giro is fine.

Sprint stages: should be spread sufficiently across the race, with a clear sprint opportunity in both the second and third week, but limited in number - 5 stages that a Quaranta type can win is too much. The total number of sprints can be a bit higher than that, but the sprinters need to earn those stages. This can be because early climbing gives the breakaway an opportunity to stay away/has the potential for splits to form, e.g. Iseo in the 2018 Giro for a stage that did go to the sprinters, Albi in the 2013 Tour for a reduced bunch sprint, and Monforte de Lemos in the 2021 Vuelta for a successful breakaway are good examples. This can also be through hills in the finale - anything from Champagnole in the 2020 Tour, through Revel in the 2010 Tour, to Cap d'Agde in the 2012 Tour works for this. A hybrid between these two like Lyon in the 2020 Tour is nice as well. Finally, an uphill finish or finish just after a hill that's right on the limit for the sprinters akin to Almaden in the 2018 Vuelta, Tropea in the 2011 Tour or Saint-Brieuc in the 2008 Tour is also a good option for variation. In addition, roads suitable for echelons should be used if possible. Above all, however, dangerous finales like Pontivy in the 2021 Tour should be avoided at all costs.

Climbing: currently much too MTF-centric, I think there should be no more than 1, maybe 2 MTFs in a GT, and at least one proper descent finish. I'm perfectly fine with having only a few hard high mountain stages, if the quality is good and they're supplemented by good hilly and mid-mountain stages. In terms of mountains, I'd advocate for something like the following:

• mid-sized MTF in week 1. Size partially dependent on how early in the race it is.
• Two queen stage-sized days. For the description of what constitutes a true queen stage, I can't really elaborate on Libertine's analysis upthread, so I won't. If possible (this is harder for the Vuelta), at least one of these stages should rely in part on long climbs at altitude, like Laghi di Cancano in the 2020 Giro or Galibier in the 2011 Tour. Also, at least one of these stages should be (well) over the 200k mark, preferably in the 220s. Neither stage should rely much on MTFs and each GT should have a Mortirolo-Aprica style finish at least every other year.
• Supplement these three stages with 1-2 easier mountain stages (amount dependent on difficulty). These can be an easier hard-easy combination stage with a slightly harder MTF like Ax-3-Domaines in the 2013 Tour, a proper descent finish like Verbania in the 2015 Giro or even Cercedilla in the 2015 Vuelta, short stages like Foix in the 2017 Tour or Formigal in the 2016 Vuelta, or classic MTFs. Finishes like Zoncolan and Angliru should be mostly avoided, especially if a harder stage relies on a climb like Mortirolo, as they allow for no tactics and produce smaller gaps each year.
• Then supplement this with hard, GC-oriented mid-mountain or hilly stages. Turin in the 2022 Giro, Castro de Herville in the 2021 Vuelta and Tortoreto Lido in the 2020 Giro are steps in the right direction, but I'd like something harder than that to feature at least every few years... something like this, for example...

Cobbles and sterrato/ribinou/whatever you want to call it: again, at least every other year. The ideal placement is anywhere after the first MTF that isn't the final GC day.

The breakaway: will have plenty of opportunities with the kind of potential sprint stage I described, especially if there are also L'Aquila 2010-style mid-mountain stages.

The final weekend: at least one GC-relevant day that isn't a TT, the queen stage, or a MTF-centric stage. The final day can be a parade if necessary, but the Giro in particular could experiment with hilly circuits on the final day, either probably not GC-relevant like the Verona worlds circuit, or some harder climbs like Scala Santa if Trieste were to return as the finish location. And surely the Tour is overdue for a tribute to that 1989 TT?

A route with this level of variety and difficulty, provided that it's properly paced - queen stages in different weeks, no hard stages being blocked by a harder stage - is the closest thing to perfection I can think of.

 

[hayneplane]

I think people have covered a lot of what I think already so will just make a few specific wish lists

1. Maximum of 3 stages where a Cav/Ewan/Merlier type is the heavy favourite to win.
2. An ITT of at least 45km that takes over 1 hour for the winner.
3. Cobbles/gravel to feature
4. At least 2 mountain stages that feature a Cat 2 or harder climb immediately at km zero.
5. A mix of mountain stages including 1 very short stage which is pure up and down with no real valley roads for dropped riders to return and dampen the racing plus a Queen stage of at least 225km and 5+ HC and Cat 1 climbs.

Something I would love to see but accept would never ever happen is the opening stage to be in the high mountains with it kicking off on the foothills of a cat 1/HC climb then going over 4 further categorised climbs in a 120km stage ending on a short 2-3km hilltop finish.

 

[Breh]

-5 flat stages just for starters, first three stages feature a F1 grid start
-A hilly stage neutralised on Lefeveres request
-Triple Tourmalet stage
-TTT on the penultimate weekend
-Perhaps a nice little stage in Flanders on the Scheldeprijs parcours
-Peyragudes MTF
-Col de La Loze as a pass some 90kms from the finish
-Pau bunch sprint
-stage 20 obviously has to be a MTF on La Planche.

 

[Netserk]

Thanks to cyclingcols and paint, I will present a detailed profile of the finish of the queen stage in the route I presented here, but which is also a well-known and much loved combo that the Tour has no excuse not to use asap:

 

[Devil's Elbow]

Thanks to cyclingcols and paint, I will present a detailed profile of the finish of the queen stage in the route I presented here, but which is also a well-known and much loved combo that the Tour has no excuse not to use asap:

I mean, Auron would actually need to bid for a stage finish first. It's been a hot minute since any of the ski stations in the area did, afaik.

 

[Netserk]

I mean, Auron would actually need to bid for a stage finish first. It's been a hot minute since any of the ski stations in the area did, afaik.

Nearest is Pra-Loup in recent years, but with stage finishes like Culoz and Espelette, I think there are alternative ways to finance such a finish. We've had rumours of a Bonette MTF, so I haven't lost hope.

 

[Luthor]

2 ITTs, one rolling at the start at 20 kms to mix ITT specialists and GC guys. Second ITT, 35 km flat in the second week, right before the mountains start.
1 TTT in stage 4 at about 12-15 kms.

5 sprint stages, one pancake flat at the end to reward those sprinters who finish, two easy which still require decent form to pass and two demanding ones which might allow roulers to win. Sorry for sprinters but sprinter stages are by far the most boring ones and the reason a lot of casual people get bored with cycling. There shouldn't be stages where there are impossible breakaways with 3 ProConti riders and basically the peloton makes it a rest day. Stages like the one where Taco won are the type of flat stages that belong in a GT. I would put the demanding ones in the first week(stage 2, stage 5) and easier ones after rest days to act like warmups.

4 hilly stages for the sprinty climby bois/breakaway specialists, not placed in weekend and preferably longer than the rest of stages.

4 middle-mountains/steep MTF/ambush shenanigans stages which should matter to GC, basically Itzulia stage 7/Vuelta stage 20 this year, for me by far the best stages we had this year.

5 high mountains stages and here there should be diversity so we wouldn't see the same scenario every time. They should be hard enough to warrant decent gaps and should be designed so GC guys would battle for the win. The most embarrassing thing this year was seeing GC teams letting breakaways take >5 minutes and GC guys dosing their efforts. This is also because of the *** ITT at the end which makes GC riders not take any risks.

 

[SHAD0W93]

-5 flat stages just for starters, first three stages feature a F1 grid start
-A hilly stage neutralised on Lefeveres request
-Triple Tourmalet stage
-TTT on the penultimate weekend
-Perhaps a nice little stage in Flanders on the Scheldeprijs parcours
-Peyragudes MTF
-Col de La Loze as a pass some 90kms from the finish
-Pau bunch sprint
-stage 20 obviously has to be a MTF on La Planche.

Might as well do it 4 times.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Just take the 2015 Giro route as a rough template, ditch the TTT for a 20km starting ITT, line up all the big GC guys and you don't need that many adaptations.

I've had a look back at all the profiles for that race, and yeah, incredible how close to perfect that route is.

I don't even mind the TTT at the start: it's short, so shouldn't completely ruin anyone's GC, but means that most riders aren't fighting for front positions to fight for yellow in the coming days. Having a TTT can also mean a team choosing one less climber for their mountain train. I do think that overall the route can do with a little more ITT, but they could do that on stage 21 (rather than the TDFish finish they did that year).

The other blemish is stage 10. Why grand tours insist on putting irrelevant GC stages after the first rest day perplexes me. Make that a reasonably hard mountain stage, and you also make that route less back loaded.

Anyway, epic medium mountain stage 4, small MTF stage 5, bigger MTF stage 8. Even better is what surrounds stage 8: a monster long stage 7 (Tour has also done this well before the weekend mountains the past two years), and a long medium mountain stage 9. Stage 15 tough high mountain stage AFTER the GENUINE ITT, perfect. Stage 16 queen stage AFTER the rest day, perfect again. Then flat stage, then a one climb stage where the climb is so hard that gaps are guaranteed (despite the stages to come), then the easiest stage in this mountain block in terms of gradients, but super long multi mountain stage, all capped off by Finestre stage 20.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

What's up with the hate of sprint stages? I mean the only sprinter I'm truely a fan of will probably never do the Tour and it's doubtful whether he does any GT soon, but... first I prefer a full bunch sprint to some stage that Joe Dombrowski, Patrick Konrad or, yes, Magnus Cort wins (sorry), yes, much of it is boring, but a sprint itself is anything but boring if there are some decent contenders, second they have always been such an important part of GTs ever since I have started to watch them... that a GT without them appears like whatever, but not a GT to me. The amount is already decreasing. And third I'm glad there are days I can tune in for 20 minutes at best without regret...

There are generally more than 5 sprint stages in a GT, and yet most of them are won by two, maybe three different riders. Considering the nature of a sprint stage, they are also easy to control by one or two teams. So unlike a mountain or classic stage, which are a lot harder to control, the teams involved have a much too high probability to be successful. That means the few top sprinters that are present, have a much higher chance to win even multiple stages, compared to climbers, TT'ers or stage hunters. And yet, you could argue that sprinters, out of all road racers, are the most one-dimensional. Yet they generally get a third of a GT tailored to their skills, in what can only be described in most cases as coma-inducingly boring snorefests.

 

[gregrowlerson]

Two years ago I drew a rough Tour route as a showcase of a good design for the Tour. Not the most creative route, as I tried to show what's possible with the current constraints. Overall length, number of rest days, number of climbs, maximum length of stages, start and finish locations, number of sprint stages, ITT km, etc. are all within recent parameters. The most unrealistic aspects are: the Grand Depart, the tunnel used in the stage to Rotterdam (can easily be fixed with a different stage start), the climb used in Metz (but still no more extreme than what has actually been used in recent years), and the last stage before Paris being a mountain stage in the Pyrenees (197 km, but the late start of the Paris stage should still make the transfer doable).



There's no distance markers on the profiles in the link (click on the image), but the hill prologue in Tulle is 2.75 km, the two other ITTs are ~41.5 km and ~47 km. The longest stage is the one to Rotterdam (249 km), the two hardest mountain stages are 210 km (Auron) and 205 km (Gavarnie). Both of the mountain blocks follow the same template: hardest MTF on day 1, hardest stage with the hardest climb being the penultimate on day 2, least selective stage most open to long distance chaos on day 3, and rest day/parade on day 4. There's as few days for the sprinters as in 2015, with as many finishes for them in the last two weeks as back then (2).

The point is to show that sequence (within stages and between stages) matter and the terrain available to the Tour is not the limitation.

This is pretty good. I would prefer something a little harder on the second weekend, as it is the route seems a bit back loaded, though your stage 6 ITT helps to counteract that a little. I also like GC stage after the rest day, so something else for stage 10. Ordering of high mountain stages is excellent.

By the way, I agree with you that total ITT kms should exceed total of MTF kms (as long as they aren't all 6% climbs). I like having rest days though (can add a little more intrigue/mystique).

 

[houtdffan]

Thanks to cyclingcols and paint, I will present a detailed profile of the finish of the queen stage in the route I presented here, but which is also a well-known and much loved combo that the Tour has no excuse not to use asap:

Could be a good stage from Italy. Go over Montvergine, Izoard, Vars before the final 2 climbs

 

[houtdffan]

I think that a perfect GT route should be one that gives chances to every kind of riders.

There should always be a few sprint stages because although I am not really a guy that likes them very much I acknowledge that they the fastest guys in the peloton should have a few chances to shine but not more than 5 ideally and some of them with crosswinds in mind.

Then there should be around 5 real mountains stages with several climbs and also preferably a couple of long mountains above 2000m although this may change considering the GT that we are talking about, the Vuelta will almost always have less of these than the Giro and the Tour. Climbing variety should also be guaranteed with a few tricky descents along the way and in the case of one or two stages to the line. In addition to this, I don't mind a pair of uniperto stages that can finish in a long or short climb.

Hilly stages are behind time-trials the type of stage that recent GT's have been missing the most. Here, I am not talking about the uniperto supersteep finishes of La Vuelta or the ones that they sometimes find in the Tour but rather stages along the lines that Tirreno stage this year that under the right circumstances could make even more differences than mountain ones. The advantage of having around 5 of these stages is that it gives good chances to breakaways to suceed and less known riders to come to the fore and in addition to this I welcome a stage with 'alternative road surface' per GT.

Finally time trials. They have been despise by many but they are part of the essence of cycling. I like the idea of having two TT of around 30/35km in the same race one flat and one hilly, like in the 2013 Tour but total total distances of less than 50km's should be avoided because a Grand Tour rider should be able to right them well like they do in mountain stages. I also welcome a prologue, TTT or MTT once in a while.

Sprint stages would be so much more meaningful if the organizers took real times based upon the transponders at the line. No 3 km rule or everyone in the same group gets the same time. GC riders who cannot sprint worth anything (Conta and Remco being the biggest offenders), would lose time on every flat stage as a result, or they'd be forced to improve their sprint

 

[gregrowlerson]

Think of sprint stages as rest days for the viewer. It's better with guaranteed boredom that you will skip, than getting disappointed by nothing happening in stages that you somehow convinced yourself to watch.

When I look back at what GTs I enjoyed the most, it pretty much all depends on the handful (or two) of stages that delivered the most, not how many that didn't deliver at all.

Excellent post, and I want to expand on this further. We all have biases when it comes to our favourite GT (usually involvement of a favourite rider/s), but my most memorable is the 2006 TDF (first one post Lance, Klöden contending, incredible crack and then recovery by one of the favourites, etc). Now that race had a large number of flat boring stages. Most of those I don't remember specifically. What I do recall:

Long ITT - Levi (normally strong in this) loses 6 minutes.
Pyrenean stage with multiple mountains - big time gaps, only 3-5 survivors.
Long flat breakaway stage - the break weirdly gains half an hour.
Three epic Alpine stages, any of which was better than the best mountain stage in most GT's since.
Another long ITT - Kloden gains 3rd (2nd) place.

Now let's think of sprint stages as being even more than just boring the viewers and giving chances to sprinters. How about the idea that sprint stages actually contribute to fatigue to climbers? Hear me out. Everyone is going on about medium mountain stages, but these only work if they are positioned well within the race, and this is hard to do at the Tour. What usually happens in these stages is that a breakaway gets away and is allowed to take the stage, hence in theory, climbers are working harder on sprint stages when sprint teams are forcing a fast pace all stage.

I suggest more lumpy stages in the Giro and Vuelta, but I see no problem with a large number of sprint stages (even up to twelve, though at least half of these can raise questions such as, cat 3 climb 30 kms from finish, cat 4 climb 10 kms from finish, possible high winds, etc) at the Tour.

 

[gregrowlerson]

My general template for the TDF would be something along these lines:

High mountains: Alps/Pyrenees are stages 8-10, 14-16. Route is not backloaded and full use is made of rest days after stages 9 & 15 (also makes good use of weekend stages!). Stage 8 is tougher than stage 9, and stage 14 is tougher than stage 15. You might throw in a MTT every few editions, but that would not be stage 9 or 15 (nor should they be a road stage HC MTF).

Medium mountains: Out of the Jura, Massif and Vosges; one or two of these are used each edition. Stages 18-19, and sometimes early in the first week (maybe even stages 1-2 when starting in France). Again, similar template to high mountains, the harder stage comes before the easier one (which can potentially encourage long range attacks). In every other edition when there are less medium mountains, include a TTT or a cobbled stage in the first week.

ITT,s: Include a prologue at least half the time (stage 1 preferably needs to at least not gift a win to a sprinter). Probably a long ITT about stage 12. Maybe one on stage 20 or 21, but maybe not as long. Anyway, we don't want to discourage racing on the third week mountain stages.

Flat stages: There are a lot of gaps here, so a lot of flat stages. But these can tire out the climbers. Especially recommend long stages just before each block of high mountains.

 

[Pantani_lives]

Sprint stages would be so much more meaningful if the organizers took real times based upon the transponders at the line. No 3 km rule or everyone in the same group gets the same time. GC riders who cannot sprint worth anything (Conta and Remco being the biggest offenders), would lose time on every flat stage as a result, or they'd be forced to improve their sprint

That would be a crashfest.

 

[Netserk]

I would prefer something a little harder on the second weekend, as it is the route seems a bit back loaded, though your stage 6 ITT helps to counteract that a little. I also like GC stage after the rest day, so something else for stage 10.

I prioritised covering some of the less used areas of France (for the Grand Depart) and to have a somewhat classic shape of the overall map (a circle covering distant parts of the country) with limited transfers. So constrained by the geography of the area, I'd say that I included the most selective terrain of all kinds there. Thursday, as you noted, is a fairly long, exposed to wind and completely flat ITT of 41.5 km. That's the middle ground between the 29.5 km on the 4th day of racing in 2008 and the 52 km on the 8th day of racing in 2006. Friday's last ~85 km is the same last ~85 km as stage 2 in 2015, but done in the opposite direction, so maximally exposed to crosswinds. Saturday features the hardest chain of hills in Belgium, straight out of rghysens's catalogue. And to finish the week off is the cobbled stage to Arenberg, featuring several of the harder sectors. Note the very deliberate order of those four stages.

Given that I didn't want a huge transfer, it wasn't really possible to move the race in the right direction and have a proper GC stage after the rest day, even if the climb and descent in Metz would be inviting attacks.

 

[rghysens]

Instead of looking for the "perfect GT" I am more and more inclined to think we need a wide variation in GT courses to make GT's as a whole, and over a longer period, interesting. Right now, given the way GT's are designed, Pogacar is the favourite to win any GT he enters, if he aims for it (and there's actually nothing wrong with it, since he is the strongest GT rider out there on current courses). Even if we'd design the perfect GT, he will be the standout favourite.
But what if we'd design a 2012 or even 1992-like course? A course that's so much different from what we are served the last few years.
Or even more grotesque: some of the silly late 70's - early 80's courses with 2 long TTT's and 4 itt's. Granted, something should be done about the 10 flat stages from that era: back then, half of them went to a breakaway but nowadays it would be 10 sprints.
Or why not allow for demi-stages again? But only if the start and finish of both demi-stages are in the same town. You can have a short flat stage on the morning of day 1, followed by a short itt in the afternoon (a bit like the final day of the 3-daagse De Panne-koksijde), or have a short itt followed by a short hilly stage somewhere down the road.

OK, now for the perfect GT:
ITT:
Like many others, I think there should be enough itt's to balance the whole thing: 2-3 stages, it can be a short prologue, followed by a 50-60km long itt somewhere halfway and a short itt to finish, or one of +/-46-50km and one of 20-25km, in total it should be around 70-80km. In certain cases a ttt should be possible, but then there should be only 2 itt's.

Flat stages:
I don't mind a fair share of flat stages. They are boring for the most part, but those final 5km or so, are always very exciting (at least for me). I'd say 5-7 flat stages, including those that are susceptible to crosswind action.

"Special" stages:
Stages designed for the "northern" classic specialists: cobbles, strade bianche, ribinou, Flanders or AGR-like courses: 1 should be included in every GT

"Very hilly/Medium mountain" stages:
Very hilly or medium mountains where GT contenders can make a difference, if they want to. Think Sheffield 2014, Le Creusot 2021, Saint Etienne 2019: 2 or 3

"High" Mountain stages:
4 to 6 each edition, but maximum 2 of them where a mtf forms the focal point of the stage. You can have mtf's apart from that, on a Mortirolo-Aprica format. In France that could be Tourmalet-Lac de Payolle, Bonette-Val Auron, Cayolle-Pra Loup, Ramaz or Joux Plane - Les Gets (ok not really a mtf), Glandon-Vaujany,...

"Undecided" stages:
Stages where we don't have a clue who will win it: what's left.

Above all, there should be a wide variation of stages, and that's what lacking in next year's giro and tour (and more in the giro than the tour).

 

[Axel Hangleck]

For me, a Grand Tour should be an 'all round' test of a rider - and showcase the sport to everybody. I want to see a bit of everything;

Sprint stages, but not too many, maybe 4-6, with maybe a coastal stage with crosswinds.
Classics type stages, were lots of different riders can win; something like that Tirreno stage.
Medium mountain stages.
High mountain stages with plenty of MTF, and maybe 1 or 2 finishes after a 10-15km descent.
2-3 ITT,with a total of 75-100km. If a rider can't TT, well get better at it, practice, go to a wind tunnel. If you can't TT to a decent level; then you don't deserve to challenge/win a GT.
And finally, an off road cobbles/gravel stage; I know some people don't like them, but I think they reflect the history, but also the current scene in cycling; manufacturers can't make/ sell enough of them. I'd actually have a TT on gravel, but sadly that's too radical to ever happen.

 

[Mayomaniac]

Thanks to cyclingcols and paint, I will present a detailed profile of the finish of the queen stage in the route I presented here, but which is also a well-known and much loved combo that the Tour has no excuse not to use asap:

I'Ve posted this one before the the race design thread (I think the stage started in Briancon and featured Izoard + Vars before Bonette:
https://www.cronoescalada.com//tracks/viewTour/67040
If they fix the sterrato between the Col de la Moutiere and Bonette you could have Mountiere-Bonette/Faux col de la Restefond before and uphill finish in Super Sauze too:
https://www.cronoescalada.com//tracks/viewTour/671267

 

[Red Rick]

I'Ve posted this one before the the race design thread (I think the stage started in Briancon and featured Izoard + Vars before Bonette:
https://www.cronoescalada.com//tracks/viewTour/67040
If they fix the sterrato between the Col de la Moutiere and Bonette you could have Mountiere-Bonette/Faux col de la Restefond before and uphill finish in Super Sauze too:
https://www.cronoescalada.com//tracks/viewTour/671267

If Gavia descent is a problem wouldn't Moutiere be an issue? Road looks tiny and drops huge IIRC?

 

[Mayomaniac]

If Gavia descent is a problem wouldn't Moutiere be an issue? Road looks tiny and drops huge IIRC?

Yeah, but the descent is only 1.5km before the road goes uphill again and meets the Bonette road at the Faux col de la Restefond.
From right to left:

1.5kms is not a lot, you could ask some Ski resorts for some Alpine Skiing safety nets if you want to be on the safe side.