What is the perfect Grand Tour?

[SHAD0W93]

Nothing is perfect!

Except Masnada of course.

 

[gavia88]

They aren't the first who wins GTs of more typical climbers. Simoni, Casagrande and Heras did it 20-25 years ago. I think there should be room for these too. GTs would be much more boring if it were so TT-packed that it heavily benifited riders in the mold of Wiggins, Dumoulin, etc. A guy like Quintana at his peak was probably a top 5 climber in the last 15 years. Then I think he is equally worthy as a GT winner as Wiggins and Dumoulin.

And who do you think will have showed up in the Giro 2021 if so were the case? The only possibly option I can see is Thomas and he is Bernal's team mate, so I can't see that would have helped much.

Which GC Casagrande won? He was close, but lost in the last time trial. Another attempt he got kicked out because of violence in the race.

 

[gavia88]

I would say that there is not something as a perfect-grand-tour route wise. To many other factors to decide if it will be a great race or not. Besides a route to much based on a formule seems not to interesting neither.

I would like to see more variation in the routes. They are no all within a certain marge the same. The difficulty of the queen stage, the number of HC, 1 and 2nd category climbs. Kilometers of time trial. They use even the same climbs every year. Most exciting of variation is if they add a stage with 20 kilometers of (easy) cobbles. I wouldn't mind if they are looking for the bounderies a bit more.

• a 80's kind of tour, with prologue, TTT, long ITT and a MTT, mixed with 3 a 4 big queen stages
• a tour more based on allround skills (why not a diagonal, with a murito stage in Ardennes, cobbled hills in Flanders, real cobbles in nothern French, a hilly stage in Boulogne and some wind alone the coast), mixed with a long TTT and a lot of medium mountains
• a climber friendly one, with all the mountain ranges (pyrenees, central massif, Alps, Jura, Vogezen)
• ect.

-Further more I would like to see in general more use of medium mountain stages in Grand Tours. Not the typical ones for breakaways, but stages were GC related racing is possible.
-More hilly murito stages. Those are great.
-Don't forget TTing like most GC do nowadays. Variate with the placement in the race. Ones in a while on the last they is great. Other years the last time trial should be maximum at the beginning of week 3.
-They should try to focus less on Mountain finishes and more on great climb that enforce to attack earlier than just in the last 5k
-don't stick to the same climb always, but try to find more creative ways. Worst example of course are the Pyrenees in the tour. It's just copy past every year.
-don't put to many GC irelevant stages after each other
-try to add strade bianchi stages like the giro did a few times. They are always fun to watch, while I don't think, flat tires or anything influenced the race in a bad way.

 

[OlavEH]

One that's different from the last.
Having all GTs follow the same pattern would get kinda boring.

Partially agree, but some elements are almost a necessity in every GT. The most important one is enough tough mountain stages, and preferable mountain stages where it is possible or which encourage long range attacks. A bunch of mountain stages with unipuerto climbs does work in some way in the Vuelta, but should really not be copied by the Tour and the Giro.

 

[OlavEH]

Which GC Casagrande won? He was close, but lost in the last time trial. Another attempt he got kicked out because of violence in the race.

Right! I remembered wrong. But he was close though!

 

[Extinction]

I would have the perfect GT start with a prologue, to gauge the form of the main contenders and the specialists. Then immediately therafter It should have a classics-like rolling stage with a short, steep rise to the finish that offers opportunity for bold attackers and a chance to gain some seconds on GC among the favorites. I would have a mountain finish by stage 5, because if not you have to wait too long to see real GC shakeup action. Although, there could also be a murito stage that draws out classics and GC adversaries in a real war. Obviously I would have one flat stage for sprinters in the first week, then a couple of not too hard, not too easy stages that could either end in a field sprint or be won from the break, but not in succession.

Week two should start with a big TT of 40-50 ks on a not completely flat course, so that it doesn't only favor the pure specialists, but also the top GC contenders with excellent TTing ability. Then I'd have something like a Strade Bianche or Ardennes-like classics stage, followed by another sprinters' stage. Now we arrive at the first 4 day block in the high mountains, with 3 MTFs and one after the descent, with the highest and most numerous cols the last day of this sequence.

I'd have week three open with a transition stage, followed by a medium mountain stage to then arrive at the second block in the high mountains, the first stage of which being a MTT, followed by a mountain stage finishing after the descent and then the queen stage over 5 cols with a MTF. Lastly, I'd have another stage for the break, to then end the GT with a sprinters stage at the national capitol.

 

[gavia88]

Right! I remembered wrong. But he was close though!

Probably he should have won that Giro, he was clearly a level above the other GC riders in the first 2 weeks.

 

[gavia88]

Partially agree, but some elements are almost a necessity in every GT. The most important one is enough tough mountain stages, and preferable mountain stages where it is possible or which encourage long range attacks. A bunch of mountain stages with unipuerto climbs does work in some way in the Vuelta, but should really not be copied by the Tour and the Giro.

I actually think a GC without high mountains could work as well. As the designs for the stages are good.

 

[RedheadDane]

Partially agree, but some elements are almost a necessity in every GT. The most important one is enough tough mountain stages, and preferable mountain stages where it is possible or which encourage long range attacks. A bunch of mountain stages with unipuerto climbs does work in some way in the Vuelta, but should really not be copied by the Tour and the Giro.

Sure, and nothing wrong with having a few traditions; like the final stage sprint in the Tour and the Vuelta. But I'm also perfectly fine with the Tour probably having to finish somewhere else in 2024.
What I don't like is the idea of GTs having to follow a formula, or even different formula for each GT. Though, while I can see some arguments for having a tradition regarding the first stage/prologue, I kinda also think that would be sad; as it would mean it would always be the same types of riders who'd get the opportunity for early pink/yellow/red.

 

[Extinction]

I actually think a GC without high mountains could work as well. As the designs for the stages are good.

You're kidding I hope, but fear you aren't. Sorry, but a GT without high mountains is no GT at all. Fortunately, those in charge of the Giro, Tour and Vuelta know this and would never design a race without them, which is unfair to climbers and doesn't put the GC contenders to the test on iconic terrain. The Italians would raise hell with no Alpi, Dolomiti and Appennini in their beloved Giro, as I'd imagine the French and Spanish would too in the absence of their Alpes, Pyrennes and Sierra Nevadas. Plus the sponsors would have a fit without the mega publicity the TV imagery affords cycling on the fan -lined slopes and magestic natural arenas that only the high mountains provide cycling. In some ways, GTs are synonymous with the high mountains and big cols. So a GT without high mountains is like Paris-Roubaix without pavé. It just makes no sense.

 

[Extinction]

Sure, and nothing wrong with having a few traditions; like the final stage sprint in the Tour and the Vuelta. But I'm also perfectly fine with the Tour probably having to finish somewhere else in 2024.
What I don't like is the idea of GTs having to follow a formula, or even different formula for each GT. Though, while I can see some arguments for having a tradition regarding the first stage/prologue, I kinda also think that would be sad; as it would mean it would always be the same types of riders who'd get the opportunity for early pink/yellow/red.

I think the main thing is to allow some inovation without deviating too far from tradition. Cycling, as is know, is a highly traditional sport, which has its good side; for example in having races of a century and more old that evolved fairly quickly into the type of events and routes we still enjoy today. This means that watching the Ronde or Paris-Roubaix, or the Giro and Tour is like coming back to an old friend, while racing them means new and old champions share similar fatigues in an enduring spectacle across epochs (in a particularly poignant way Paris-Roubaix). All of this I find to be very possitive, never boring, and is one of the reasons I still follow pro cycling. It's like the lazy days of July would not be the same without le Tour.

On the other hand, some innovation where it enhances the spectacle of the race is welcome, like Strade Bianche-like stages in GTs (Strada Bianche itself being arguably the happiest new edition to the classics calendar). The inception of murito type stages at the Giro are also popular novelties.

As for your concern over formulaic GTs, it seems they have varied the beginning stages enough to allow different types of riders to take the leader's jersey. So I don't think it's much of a problem, like the 80's Tours almost invariably starting with a prologue (which I liked, however, at the time).

 

[RedheadDane]

As for your concern over formulaic GTs, it seems they have varied the beginning stages enough to allow different types of riders to take the leader's jersey. So I don't think it's much of a problem, like the 80's Tours almost invariably starting with a prologue (which I liked, however, at the time).

Indeed; I like it as it is now! Heck, I'm even fine with the occassional Vuelta 2020 madness, and just straight to the mountains.

 

[OlavEH]

Sure, and nothing wrong with having a few traditions; like the final stage sprint in the Tour and the Vuelta. But I'm also perfectly fine with the Tour probably having to finish somewhere else in 2024.
What I don't like is the idea of GTs having to follow a formula, or even different formula for each GT. Though, while I can see some arguments for having a tradition regarding the first stage/prologue, I kinda also think that would be sad; as it would mean it would always be the same types of riders who'd get the opportunity for early pink/yellow/red.

No, there should be room for some variation. The Tours around 2000 were pretty uniform. Perhaps 5 or maximum 6 high mountain stages, 100+ km of ITT, maximum a couple of fairly easy hilly stages and about 10 flat sprinters stages. I would like something to "spice up" the route. Cobbled stages, sterrato, murito stages, very long medium mountain stages and something new and unexpected in the mountains (no the steep ramps like Super Belles Filles or the altiport on Peyragudes) are nice ways to create variation.

 

[gavia88]

You're kidding I hope, but fear you aren't. Sorry, but a GT without high mountains is no GT at all. Fortunately, those in charge of the Giro, Tour and Vuelta know this and would never design a race without them, which is unfair to climbers and doesn't put the GC contenders to the test on iconic terrain. The Italians would raise hell with no Alpi, Dolomiti and Appennini in their beloved Giro, as I'd imagine the French and Spanish would too in the absence of their Alpes, Pyrennes and Sierra Nevadas. Plus the sponsors would have a fit without the mega publicity the TV imagery affords cycling on the fan -lined slopes and magestic natural arenas that only the high mountains provide cycling. In some ways, GTs are synonymous with the high mountains and big cols. So a GT without high mountains is like Paris-Roubaix without pavé. It just makes no sense.

well, I was not saying I would like to see that every year and I was not saying there wouldn't be hard stages. Of course I like the high mountain stages. But, I don't like the idea grand tour = climbing. Cycling and grand tours is more than just cycling for <60 kilogram riders. Besides, a lot of high mountain stages are boring, badly designed and just a waiting game for the last few kilometers. Medium mountains can be as intresting as high mountain. Without high mountains doesn't mean no climbing at all. And riders are triggered to be more creative than just a watt fest the last 20 minutes of the stage.

But of couse I know it's not going to happen. The general opinion is that grand tours are for climbers. It would be dificult to sell marketing wise.

 

[gavia88]

Indeed; I like it as it is now! Heck, I'm even fine with the occassional Vuelta 2020 madness, and just straight to the mountains.

prologues are undervalued nowadays. Still the best start for a Grand tour. Showing every participant whom will participate the next 3 weeks.

 

[Extinction]

well, I was not saying I would like to see that every year and I was not saying there wouldn't be hard stages. Of course I like the high mountain stages. But, I don't like the idea grand tour = climbing. Cycling and grand tours is more than just cycling for <60 kilogram riders. Besides, a lot of high mountain stages are boring, badly designed and just a waiting game for the last few kilometers. Medium mountains can be as intresting as high mountain. Without high mountains doesn't mean no climbing at all. And riders are triggered to be more creative than just a watt fest the last 20 minutes of the stage.

But of couse I know it's not going to happen. The general opinion is that grand tours are for climbers. It would be dificult to sell marketing wise.

But GTs are not exclusively for climbers, in fact it is rare that a pure climber wins. At the same time riding up to 2000 meters and beyond, makes the GT winner more exceptional, because he can also TT and all the rest. This is why GTs are the ultimate test in the sport. Of course, between the Giro, Tour and Vuelta there are differences, but big cols are a must.

 

[gavia88]

But GTs are not exclusively for climbers, in fact it is rare that a pure climber wins. At the same time riding up to 2000 meters and beyond, makes the GT winner more exceptional, because he can also TT and all the rest. This is why GTs are the ultimate test in the sport. Of course, between the Giro, Tour and Vuelta there are differences, but big cols are a must.

Not so rare in my opinion:

-real climbers with 1 or multiple GC's in the last 10 years: Hindley, Bernal, Carapaz, Contador, Quintana, Vingegaard, Yates, Aru
-then you have some riders that maybe are not pure climbers, but definitely have it as there primary skill, like Froome, Nibali, Roglic, Pogacar, Horner, Hart

Riders with a speciality that is not climbing and won a GC? Dumoulin and Wiggens. But very good climbers, but more time trialist than pure climbers.

I guess that completely shows how biased GC are to climbers.

 

[Extinction]

Not so rare in my opinion:

-real climbers with 1 or multiple GC's in the last 10 years: Hindley, Bernal, Carapaz, Contador, Quintana, Vingegaard, Yates, Aru
-then you have some riders that maybe are not pure climbers, but definitely have it as there primary skill, like Froome, Nibali, Roglic, Pogacar, Horner, Hart

Riders with a speciality that is not climbing and won a GC? Dumoulin and Wiggens. But very good climbers, but more time trialist than pure climbers.

I guess that completely shows how biased GC are to climbers.

Being a top climber is a necessary requirement for winning a GT, if you haven't noticed, and that is how it must be. However, in the era of scientific preparation, the notion of a "pure climber" has largely become moot. Dumoulin and Wiggins gained in Power to Weight science, putting them under such rigor that it was not sustainable. In fact, they cracked mentally and physically after their GT triumphs, because it was unnatural.

 

[gavia88]

Being a top climber is a necessary requirement for winning a GT, if you haven't noticed, and that is how it must be.

Just 1 message before you mentioned that real climbers barely win. While the reality is that 50% of GC are won by pure climbers and the other half still has it as there prefered skill. That you only need to climb as GT winner I don't see as anything positive. And is the bias we have nowadays if we look at grand tours. Climbing skills yes, but not only climbing skills.

 

[Extinction]

well, I was not saying I would like to see that every year and I was not saying there wouldn't be hard stages. Of course I like the high mountain stages. But, I don't like the idea grand tour = climbing. Cycling and grand tours is more than just cycling for <60 kilogram riders. Besides, a lot of high mountain stages are boring, badly designed and just a waiting game for the last few kilometers. Medium mountains can be as intresting as high mountain. Without high mountains doesn't mean no climbing at all. And riders are triggered to be more creative than just a watt fest the last 20 minutes of the stage.

But of couse I know it's not going to happen. The general opinion is that grand tours are for climbers. It would be dificult to sell marketing wise.

But the 60 kilogram riders usually can't excel in the TTs. If anything the problem isn't a mountain lopsided GT, but the lack thereof. Since if the science of preparation has maximized the power to weight ratio for heavier riders on the big cols, it has not found a solution for the lightweights to power in the TTs. Thus if those adept against the clock are also able to stay with the mountain goats in the high mountains, then having too many TT ks kills the race. In fact, this is why we have seen the total kms of TTs diminish over the years. GT races are about creating time gaps, and high mountains and TTs do this most effectively. The delicate balance between the two is critical for the entertainment vskue of the whole.

 

[gavia88]

But the 60 kilogram riders usually can't excel in the TTs. If anything the problem isn't a mountain lopsided GT, but the lack thereof. Since if the science of preparation has maximized the power to weight ratio for heavier riders on the big cols, it has not found a solution for the lightweights to power in the TTs. Thus if those adept against the clock are also able to stay with the mountain goats in the high mountains, then having too many TT ks kills the race. In fact, this is why we have seen the total kms of TTs diminish over the years.

well, but is it fair to say that we only should climb in GC? and limit TT's, cobbles/strade bianchi, puncheur finishes? If others combine climbing and TT better, are they not the more deserved winners?

 

[Extinction]

well, but is it fair to say that we only should climb in GC? and limit TT's, cobbles/strade bianchi, puncheur finishes? If others combine climbing and TT better, are they not the more deserved winners?

No, as long as there are enough climbs, because nature dictates that cyclists should have to suffer up long climbs.

 

[gavia88]

No, as long as there are enough climbs, because nature dictates that cyclists should have to suffer up long climbs.

I agree with you that climbing in the high mountains is beautifull to see (race and landscape wise), but I disagree that nature dictates that cyclists always should suffer up long mountains. Variation is key. I liked last years first week for example. Cobbles, Prologue, hilly stages. Only the wind in Denmark was hyped to much. Paris Nice is normally one of the best classement races of the year, and that is not because of the amount of climbing.

 

[Tonton]

The overall design is more important than X kilometers of ITT or Y number of MTF. And for Le Tour, there are serious geographic limitations when it comes to covering all regions in two, three year cycles. Not that ASO cares about it, but as a fan, I do. Until I get what I want, I'll give GTs an 8.

My perfect Tour (I know France's geography much better than Italy's or Spain's) start on a Wednesday,, and as a fan I like a prologue to start or a short, less than 15 km ITT. I try to gauge/guess the riders' form, read what you folks post, that's a great beginning. Small time gaps to defend the next day on hilly terrain, say Ardennes, or if the route is different, maybe wind coastal start and hilly finish in northern Bretagne. Friday is OK for a TTT, cobbled stage, and Saturday and Sunday two medium mountain stages with multiple good climbs towards the finish. A Vosges/Jura combo maybe, or Super-Jura and a Swiss finish. On the other side, the Massif Central offers limited options, but Puy Mary-Perthus is no picnic on a Sunday, for example. And it's a good TV week-end for the fans, which must be there to get a 10. No crappy stages on the week-end!!!

Monday off (I know Netserk, but I don't want busted riders blaming me for their doping). Rest day it is, and on Tuesday, it all depends on where the route is. BUT: in the entire design, my wish is only one pure sprinter stage, and we can make it the longest stage of the race. Nantes-Bordeaux at the '84 TdF, 338 km, and The Great Jan Raas prevailed. Every flat or flat-ish stage profile must contain a healthy dose of sterrato,, cobbles, finish with hills and muritos.

Like many, I want different types of mountain stage designs, but more than anything, novelty. Maybe a finish after a short descent from Ventoux/Bedouin to the Mont Serein resort? Sarenne-AdH descent-Sabot newly gravelled MTF? Or a Cote de Laffrey finish after an up-and-down around Grenoble. I'd like to see Glieres as a MTF finish. Madeleine via La Chambre short descent, Lachat and it's brutal finish. Pays Basque...

In my model, stages 3 and 4 were mountainous. The ideal is no more than three consecutive mountain stages, and only if two of them are medium mountain stages. And they happen on the weekends. Therefore stages 9 and 10 are weekend mountain stages. 15 and 16 also are week-end mountain stages. That's when the ITT comes stage 16 (the last Tuesday), or rather the next day. Two more mountain stages, or two medium, one high altitude. Then Paris. And every other year, skip the stage 16 ITT, and have it in Paris. There will be drama, podium spots on the line, maybe the overall win in the balance, an all-day event for us to appreciate.

Call me dumb, and idealist, a stoner (and you may be true), yes, at times, riders make the race: The greats do. Pogacar made the '22 TdF great. Hinault made '80 LBL great, Ocana made the '71 TdF great, Nibali dominated the '14 Tour before it even started. Roche's '87 campaign is a thing of beauty, but we grew accustomed to bots and predictable outcomes. Riders don't but they can make the race.

I have spent an hour on this, no more edits and style. I give myself an 8.

 

[Extinction]

I agree with you that climbing in the high mountains is beautifull to see (race and landscape wise), but I disagree that nature dictates that cyclists always should suffer up long mountains. Variation is key. I liked last years first week for example. Cobbles, Prologue, hilly stages. Only the wind in Denmark was hyped to much. Paris Nice is normally one of the best classement races of the year, and that is not because of the amount of climbing.

But Paris-Nice is not a GT and is run in March, when it's not possible to go over 2000 meters. A GT needs big cols, because climbing is an essential testing ground to see who is the best all-rounder. And you need multiple hard climbing days in a GT for it to be a GT, otherwise it would be Paris-Nice. So, yes, nature does dictate (in the Alpes, Dolomites, Pyrennes, Sierra Nevadas), in a GT, that cyclists were meant to suffer up long climbs.