Ultimate TDF parcours

Yellow Peril

On my way home as I was "smashin' it up an' dahn" the Peel Road I reflected on comments about today's stage. It appears that many forumites believe that this year's Tour is a particularly poor parcours.

Looking back over Tours that you've witnessed which "classic" stages would you put into a Tour? (predominantly on the basis of its parcours) and why?. If you can think of more than one and perhaps not just MTF stages all the better.

Perhaps we can then email it to Prudhomme.

RichN95.

All the important stages need to be in the first two weeks. If you put decisive stages in the last week, the Tour will have been written off as boring before you get there.

morstar

This years course is fine. Too many forumites suffer from chronic nostalgia for races that never really happened quite how they choose to remember them and as far as I can tell, plenty don't actually like cycling.
A great race happens when two evenly matched competitors arrive at July in great form.

With very few exceptions, most tours have significantly more stages where little changes than ones where yellow jerseys turn the screw just because they can.

Perhaps we should have endless HC climbs and mtf's but slag the riders off for daring to dope.

Yellow Peril

I thought a couple of classics style stages like the ones we had last year would be good in the first week. I would also include a Ventoux stage as Ican't recall a bad one. There was Armstrong/Pantani one from the "dark days" and the one in 2009 when Wiggo came 4th was fairly tense.

inkyfingers

You also need to bear in mind that just making it harder doesn't always make for better racing as riders may be more likely to save energy. Also, it's the riders that make it exciting, not the parcours. The Pyrenean stages is last years tour were hard but the favourites just watched each other whereas in the Alps the big names went on the attack properly.

For me the key is a balanced route, with a good chunk of TTing but also at 6 properly tough mountain stages with 4 summit finishes and the others finishing right at the bottom of descent from the final climb. You also need to mix up the stages a bit, with more stages in the Jura and the Massif Centrale which allow you to mix up mountain and flat stages a bit more rather than just having the traditional 3 days in the Alps and 3 days in the Pyrenees. Three tough stages in a row just makes it more likely that the riders will save their energy for the last one. This years route is just too helpful for the good TTers, though it doesn't help that the best climbers are either not there or crashed out.

One thing the ASO have done well is to include a few stages in the first week with tough uphill finishes, just to break up the traditional flat first week.

Finally I would ditch the prologue and start with a road stage and introduce 10, 6 and 4 second time bonuses on the flat stages, which serves up a good race for the yellow jersey in the first week but without affecting the final GC too much. Otherwise you just have the prologue winner holding the jersey till the first mountain stage.

Yellow Peril

What about two stages in one day? They used to do this a few years back, TT then race, too gimmicky?

I see you suggest "bonifications" Inky, I was going to ask about thoughts on those.

rick_chasey

S'all about breaking it up and keeping it varied.

Something for everyone.

So not 3 sprint stages in a row in week one.

I'd want more classicy styles later on in the race. Narrow roads, twisty, turny, awkward little climbs.

Week one classicy stuff is fun in bits, but you risk knocking too many big names out - so maybe the broader roads of LBL.

I'd like a loooong stage in week one with a good Cat 2 MTF - preferably not too steep.

I liked the idea of Ardenne style stages - especially as stage 1 - give people an incentive to go out and race for yellow.

Good two long TTs. Boring, but necessary. Throw it in week one, and another just before Paris.

I like the idea of one or two stages which are pretty flat but then with a good cat two say 5 or 10 km from the finish.

Circle of death compulsary. As well as the Cat 2 MTF, I'd have 1 Cat 1 MTF in the Pyrenees, after a brutal day (before circle of death perhaps), and then that 2011 epic Alp stage.

Make sense?

Le Commentateur

Perhpas they've made it straightforward ahead of next years 100th event, which will then seem amazing by comparison. A bit like the 2002 and 2003 editions.

alan_a

Le Commentateur wrote:

Perhpas they've made it straightforward ahead of next years 100th event, which will then seem amazing by comparison. A bit like the 2002 and 2003 editions.

I was at the Marmotte last week and the locals were all talking about how next year the tour is going up Alpe d'Huez TWICE in one day after a trip over Galibier. Col de Saurenne is getting totally tarmaced to accomodate this aspect of the race. Plus a similar double ascent of Ventoux seems to be suggested.

frenchfighter

Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not like this route and you only really watch the Tour, let me recommend a race called the Giro d'Italia. It is the same principle as the Tour - 3 week stage race - but this time, around Italy.

It has a stunning route, and even the stages not classified as mountain stages are interesting and hard. Lots of attacking riding especially from smaller Italian teams and you can count on this race for creating heros and courageous riding.

As an example, here is the route for the Giro last year. It was won by Contador in supreme style. A lot of riders soft tapping around this TdF route would get eaten alive if they rode it.











Or stages like this...125km of action packed racing


Or 262km one day...in the middle of a 3 week race...as a mountain stage...you kidding right...no


A 60km TT..how boring I hear you say...well this one is a moutain one and the top 10 are climbers


And an 85km stage...only 85km....well these 85km are straight up the Blockhaus (first 8 riders arrived solo)

morstar

If you take any elite sport, modern training methods, tactics and equipment + higher levels of participation mean that differentials are harder to create. Name any sport and I can find someone who will lament how the spectacle is not the same as it used to be. It's the reality. The tour reflects that in cycling as it's the biggest prize. The giro doesn't because it doesn't get the best riders all turning up. Bigger differential more gaps in performance and less predictable racing.

RichN95.

frenchfighter wrote:

As an example, here is the route for the Giro last year. It was won by Contador in supreme style. A lot of riders soft tapping around this TdF route would get eaten alive if they rode it.

For people who weren't Contador fans, that was an absolute dud of a Grand Tour. And that's without considering that it was known that the favourite would quite likely get stripped of the title if he won before the race even started

This year's was no great shakes either.

The 'Giro is is always better' schtick is for noobs who don't want to be seen as noobs. It's a reserve team fixture which is sometimes great, sometimes dull - same as most other races.

ocdupalais

inkyfingers wrote:

it's the riders that make it exciting, not the parcours.

Agree.
There's no "Ultimate TDF Parcours" - it depends on who the GC contenders are on any given year, what they've got to prove and the teams they've got to prove it with.

morstar wrote:

This years course is fine. Too many forumites suffer from chronic nostalgia for races that never really happened quite how they choose to remember them and as far as I can tell, plenty don't actually like cycling.

Utterly agree.

If you can give up on the nonsense of a perpetual frying-pan fight on, and throughout, every stage between the various classification jersey wearers and their teams, you might be able to appreciate the subtleties of competition that crop up as a result of clever course design and team tactics - perhaps when anyone least expected them. Today, for example (Stage 15), (as Dave Harmon on Eurosport made a good case of highlighting) Saxo Bank Tinkoff had a tactic of basically blackmailing the break into easing up so that their man Sörenson could join them! The team's statement to the breakaway was "let our man join you, or we'll go to the front of the chasing peloton and close you down".
It worked.

He came 4th. Wa-hay! (Small mercies for a team who's main man is at home shouting "ay caramba!" at the telly...)
OK, that in itself doesn't make an otherwise fairly uneventful stage riveting, but at the same time, I think we should resist the calls for everything to be kicking off left, right and centre. I've said before that the key to the GTs being appreciated by a bigger audience will come down more and more to the direction and production of the coverage. In every moment of every stage of supposedly the most boring of Tours, Giros or Vueltas, there is someone attacking, blowing-up, crashing, pissing, arguing, laughing, abandoning, puncturing, mucking about or taking it all very seriously...
It's a combination of physical and psychological extremes; with spectacle, holiday showcase, circus and soap-opera thrown in.

With Contador and Andy Schmuck having both essentially having missed out on 2 years of Tour victory (with their billing as the World's 2 best climbers still just about intact), and the emergence of some new contenders (Froome, TJVG, Rolland, JTL, ahem, etc), I reckon we'll see the team TT back in (to potentially disadvantage them and their climbing centred teams) and an up-hill/ mountain TT (to favour them); the ODBs (Old Diesel B@stards), Evans and Wiggins (both with points to prove), will be hoping for nothing too erratic but getting it anyway.


Otherwise, it's all good - next year is already lining up as absolute corker: it's July, it's France, it's the best in the World at their peak doing their utmost to knock the sh!t out of each other...

Jez mon

Undoubtedly, the parcours this year have contributed to a dull race. There have been some very disappointing stages, the back to front stage (stage 12, look at the profile) sticks in the mind as a bit of a waste of time GC wise, (although as a Millar fan, I was happy with the result).

However, its probably worth bearing in mind that designing a tour is a fairly horrendous job, especially when riders are happy to defend any top 10 position, at times I get the feeling that a top 10 at the tour is worth as much as a podium at the other GTs, and I feel the race may suffer as a result.

Also, reading this thread, its interesting to read the opinion above on the 2009 (?) tour, saying the Ventoux stage was great. My recollection is that there was pretty much 3 weeks of cagey racing, followed by a stage which couldn't possibly live up to all the hype, but was nevertheless exciting.

I think some nice HC mtfs (2 or 3!) A mtf before the first TT, some classics type stages, and for my gimmick...time bonuses for winning most attacking rider per day and for winning polka dot points

phreak

RichN95 wrote:

frenchfighter wrote:

As an example, here is the route for the Giro last year. It was won by Contador in supreme style. A lot of riders soft tapping around this TdF route would get eaten alive if they rode it.

For people who weren't Contador fans, that was an absolute dud of a Grand Tour. And that's without considering that it was known that the favourite would quite likely get stripped of the title if he won before the race even started

This year's was no great shakes either.

The 'Giro is is always better' schtick is for noobs who don't want to be seen as noobs. It's a reserve team fixture which is sometimes great, sometimes dull - same as most other races.

That's only down to money though. It's money that dictate the best riders have to ride the Tour. If we look just at the route then the Giro wins hands down.

airwise

Frenchfighter is spot on for me. Get them to head into Italy and stay there.

The TdF is soft. I mean oooooh Alpe d'huez TWICE in a day!! Scary. Hell Dutch charity workers do it SIX times in a day at the age of Sixty so twice for elite athletes must have them quivering in their boots.

The problem is that the climbs of the French Alps are really gentle making getting an attack to stick in an era of clean cyclists hard. That's how it seems to me. They can make it long - but then everyone is exhausted and they just all ride tempo together.

If I were running the show I would definitely have them tarmac the road above Les Deux Alpes that goes to the ski station at 2600m on the Jandri Express and have a stage finish up there. That really would sort the men from the boys. Or even tarmac it further and create the highest stage finish in Tour history. But they need something exciting. The current classic climbs are lacking something for me - as is Le Tour compared with the wonderful Giro.

pb21

airwise wrote:

stuff

Are you for real!!!

jerry3571

Boring first week and Mountains and TTs in the 2nd and 3rd week; it's tradition.
I think they used to have a cobbled stage like a few years ago but they've got soft on this. I think it's good as the Tour Winner should be the best Overall bike rider on all terrains. Crazy, steep stuff should be left for the Vuelta/Giro del Trentino etc.
I think they could do with a bit more around the Nice area where the Paris Nice finishes up and the Leige area, just something for the Classics/Tour rider. Nice bit of a lumpy Classics thrown in to stir the pot.
Also this would knock the shine off the legs in the first week meaning less crashes; hopefully.

-Jerry

airwise

Yep. Sorry but there's a reason the French alps are so revered by riders from Northern Europe. One is the Tour history and the other is that any overweight Sigma Sport frequenting mamil can get up them and feel they've achieved something.

How Alpe d'Huez is categorised as HC is beyond me. The problem for the organisers is finding roads that cause real problems like the Angrilu and the Zoncolan. Route de Jandri would be one such climb but thanks to Msr Limousin they seem to be few and far between in France. It seems the organisers are looking for more challenging gradients but the ones used in this Tour are sadly too short to cause huge damage.

rick_chasey

Often the HC is as much to do with where it is on the stage as it is the difficulty.

What makes the Alp good is
a - it works like an amphitheatre for the crowd.
b - it's bathed in sun in the afternoon (mostly)
c - it's a good gradient and length. Steep and long enough to do some real damage, but not so steep that it's a pure watts/kg test with no tactics. The tactics play a good part, but you still need to be a good climber.

jim453

airwise wrote:

Yep. Sorry but there's a reason the French alps are so revered by riders from Northern Europe. One is the Tour history and the other is that any overweight Sigma Sport frequenting mamil can get up them and feel they've achieved something.

How Alpe d'Huez is categorised as HC is beyond me. The problem for the organisers is finding roads that cause real problems like the Angrilu and the Zoncolan. Route de Jandri would be one such climb but thanks to Msr Limousin they seem to be few and far between in France. It seems the organisers are looking for more challenging gradients but the ones used in this Tour are sadly too short to cause huge damage.

Rick is right. It's about where it comes in the stage as well. Invariably the Alpe is ridden right at the end of the day, with the peloton having ridden over one or two other vey long climbs before hand.

Let's get away from this idea that the climbs need to be as steep as riders could reasonably ride up. Both of the Angliru and the Zoncolan are needlessly severe if you ask me. The reason the french Alps are so revered is because they are absolutely drenched in tour history, it has nothing to do with sigma sport frequenting mamils. Don't be ridiculous.

dougzz

I'm no cycling history buff, but the most exciting stage I remember wasn't a mtf, but the Strade Bianche stage of the Giro 2 (?) years ago, that was awesome. But as been said above isn't it about the way the riders choose to attack the race rather than the course that makes for excitement. The Giro FF refers to was mostly dull, Bertie attacked early, put the race to bed and then we watched them grind round Italy for another 2 weeks, only to find out a year later Scarponi won.
I think this Tour has been a bit dull, winning it in the TT is always that way for me, also given the nature of Wiggins climbing (sustained tempo rather than fits and starts type attacks) Sky are shutting the race down, and whilst very effective it's not perhaps as exciting to watch.

rick_chasey

^^ The weather helped a lot in that Giro stage.

I wish they'd do cobbles later in the race.

inkyfingers

Rick Chasey wrote:

I wish they'd do cobbles later in the race.

They do, on the final day.

rick_chasey

inkyfingers wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

I wish they'd do cobbles later in the race.

They do, on the final day.

Was waiting for that one .

smithy21

I always think the Giro and Vuelta have to try too hard because they are not the Tour. As Rich said they are reserve team fixtures. Some of the climbs are almost comical in the quest for steepness. Do the pro's also not say that generally the Tour is a few km per hour quicker than any other race so for people to come on here and say its not hard enough is clearly bollocks.

While I do agree that this years route could have been better thought out it is a bit of re-balancing from previous years which have been very climber friendly.

Does a cleaner race= less exciting racing?

Are people really keen to see busted drug cheats like Contador dancing up climbs while the rest are breathing out of their backsides? Is that really exciting racing?

ocdupalais

smithy21 wrote:

Do the pro's also not say that generally the Tour is a few km per hour quicker than any other race so for people to come on here and say its not hard enough is clearly bollocks.

Exactly.
What's harder: the Zoncolan ridden at 15kph or Alpe D'Huez at 20kph?

For those diss-ing the Tour, just out of interest, I'd like to know how you think any Giro winner (or Vuelta winner, for that matter) of the last 5 years would have coped with the Sky team currently riding the Tour (and you can swap Froome around with Wiggins if that helps)?

I think that they are pretty much operating at the upper limits of what's feasible (presumed clean). They could be stronger still if they took out the side-show distraction of Cav (and Eisel). If you threw in a few more comedy climbs/stages (Angliru/Zoncolan type), you might get more cracks appearing in the GC, but the flat 53km TT at the end this year was meant as a stick to goad the Schlecks, Contador, Rolland, Voeckler, Nibali, etc gaining as much as possible on Evans and Wiggins beforehand: for one reason or another, that hasn't happened*.

That is not the fault of the organisers.
They have to weigh up the differences in the way that the Tour is "consumed": TV now being a major consideration, but if the roadside spectators aren't catered for, the atmosphere's not the same.
People go on about TTs being dull, but these are often the best thing to watch as a roadside spectator - hey, it's like the stars of the road are queueing up to pass you one at a time!.

Everyone's got an opinion about how the course could have been better after the race. And that's why this forum must be so helpful to ASO.

*although we did see Evans get properly dropped

Le Commentateur

I think part of the problem is that only the highlights of previous tours get re-broadcast, Youtubed and remembered, so people develop a taste for more frequent dramatic moments, a bit like 1 day cricket versus multi-day format.

I was at Les Deux Alpes in 1998, watching coverage on the big screen (and in a bar with dozens of Italians when the weather got increasingly wet) and I remember how tedious that stage threatened to be from the Croix de Fer until past the Col du Telegraphe. It was only when they were through Valloire and beginning the Galiber that it got interesting, when we realised that Ullrich had gradually lost his support and was surrounded by climbers making speculative attacks, like a caribou isolated from a herd and being harrassed by wolves. However unlike all the other climbers Pantani was absolutely nowhere to be seen until his infamous attack halfway up the Galibier. Watching the available footage now, you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd been kicking things off all day rather than maybe 4 hours in to a stage.

edhornby

I started watching the tour in the late 80's when I was a kid, it was 1988 and the lemond/fignon duel that had me hooked.

There were some entertaining years that followed, then came big Mig and he made the race dull; impressive but not fun to watch as it was predictable. I have to say the same thing for Armstrong as well, you knew how the teams would perform and the point where the big attack would come - although some stages were thrilling when there was duelling, it wasn't all great

right now I think that the racing is more entertaing than previous years in general because there is less predictability. During the Indurain/Armstrong years there were summit finishes aplenty but that didn't always ensure a classic...

Tom Butcher

If it were my race I'd :
- cut the teams down to fewer riders - 6 or 7 is plenty - domination by teams like Sky or USP don't make the race exciting.
- if a mountain stage doesn't end with a summit finish then bring the finish closer to the descent.
- fewer TT miles than this year.
- bit hard to guarantee cross winds but have a go at finding some long flat coastal roads where the wind is likely to blow - those rare stages where the peloton is split into echelons are classic.
- bonus seconds for top 3 on stage - give the GC riders who can finish well but maybe can't quite live with the best climbers in the high mountains something to aim for.
- mix in some more shorter stages - 3 hours of fast racing is better than 5 hours rolling along and a sprint.

I do think this year's parcours is poor - of course it's the riders that make the race but the parcours has an influence and for me there are too many mountain stages with a finish too far from the final mountain and too many TT miles mixed in there. On the plus side they have cut down the number of traditional flat sprinters stages and introduced more lumpy stuff.

Pross

People have short memories. This year's Giro was OKish on a couple of stages but the year before was one of the most boring GTs I can recall despite the stupid, virtually novelty toughness of the route. Why do so many people seem to think a GT should be all about the mountains? It should be the ultimate test of all-round ability. The mountains should be a decent part of that but last year's Vuelta was basically won by the bloke who was light enough and geared correctly for riding an insanely steep 1km of the route.

Some of the most exciting Tour stages in recent years have been those where the cross-winds have shredded the peloton or 2010 over the cobbles. Also people have forgotten that at this exact stage last year we were all moaning about a boring parcours, Thor Hushovd had won a stage in the Pyrenees. Now all we hear is about the exciting battle in the Alps - it was just 2 days plus the TT, the same could happen this year in the Pyrenees. I'd have a couple of stages running along the coast and hope the wind blows. It's a shame that Saturday's stage was only on the coast for a few kms at the end as it could have caused chaos.

To answer the question, I would have a prologue hill climb, a few stages along the west coast, a stage on the pave, a stage in the Ardennes and / or Vosges, a stage in the Massif Central and a stage along the south coast plus the usual couple of TTs (a relatively short one and a longer one), some average sprint days and mountain stages that were short and avoided prolonged valley area (4 MTFs and 2 finishes very close to the bottom of a final descent). Good all round route with chances that the weather / road surface could play its part.