etepper300

I am planning a trip with three other people to Europe this summer for two weeks. The initial plan was to road trip it from Paris to Munich, including French wine country, Lake Lucerne, and Liechtenstein. Our plan was to spend 2-3 days in each place, depending on how much there is to do.

Fly into Paris, and spend a couple of days there (we have all been there before and do not need too much time)
Drive to Champagne or Bordeaux - spend time at the vineyards
Colmar
Lake Lucerne - spend a couple of days hiking
Liechtenstein
Munich

After doing some research, I am concerned about the costs of fees when renting a car in one country, and dropping it off in another. My questions are:

- Do you think this is too much? Should we eliminate one of our stops? Is there somewhere you think we should definitely NOT miss out on?

- in order to avoid the crazy costs, should we rent a car only for the French leg of our trip, and take trains to the other areas? Is this easy to navigate? Which wine country area do you recommend we visit?

Any and all advice is welcome. Thanks so much in advance!

etepper300

** My apologies, I meant to type Burgundy, not Bordeaux.

PalenQ

- in order to avoid the crazy costs, should we rent a car only for the French leg of our trip, and take trains to the other areas?>

Well yes for a couple of reasons: if you want to see actual vineyards up close and tour the caves you'll need a car but if you want to visit the several prestigious wine houses in Reims or Epernay you can do that by train as they are in those cities.

Bordeaux is LONG way from Paris by car - a whole day or so - Champagne is on your way to Colmar - may drive Paris to Reims/Epernay then to Colmar- return the car and take trains the rest of the way as everything on that portion is easily done by train:

colmar is close to Basel by train and in Switzerland you may find a Swiss Pass or Swiss Transfer Ticket with 50% off Half-Fare Card combo a great deal - passes cover boats as well as trains and city buses and trams and postal buses and give 50% off on most gondolas to mountain tops or mountain trains.
The pass will take you to Lichtenstein as well but if going to Vaduz the capital of the Duchy you'll have to take a bus from I think the last Swiss train station (Liechtenstein being snadwiched between Switzerland and Austria).

Then go to Munich by train. Forget about any Eurailpass but strongly look at a Swiss Pass which covers so so much - lets you hop on any train, boat, etc without even going to the ticket window. Just buy other tickets, which are cheap as you go along or for the train to Munich you can get discounted fares at www.bahn.de/en - the German Railways official site. But discounted tickets are train-specific and can't be changed at the discounted fares to another train if you miss the designated train. But you can save probably 50$ or so p.p. over full fare Liechtenstein areas to Munich - for lots of great stuff on trains check www.ricksteves.com; www.budgeteuropetravel.com and www.seat61.com.

If you drive from Champagne to Colmar you can easily stop off at Verdun and see the infamous trenches from WW 1 in the extensively preserved battlefield:

https://www.google.com/search?q=verd...w=1920&bih=955

Just north of Colmar are a string of cute wine villages like Riquewehr and Rubeville (sps?) on the marked Alsace Wine Road that meanders along the foot of the Vosges mountains and is a well-know wine region that you can easily from Colmar visit.

Strasbourg IMO is one of the most unheralded cities in Europe - maybe drive over there, drop the car - bop over the Rhine on a train and head south via Freiburg and the Black Forest by train to Basel, Switzerland.

I think that is not too much for a 2-week trip though this is subjective and others may have different takes - but I've traveled like that for years and love it - others say you must stay several days in each place or it is not worth it - no one is right and no one is wrong so do what you feel like - your current plans are very manageable IF you do not go to Bordeaux.

PalenQ

Oh Burgundy changes it all - I'd prefer going to Burgundy for a classic wine area over Alsace - though again some may disagree - drive from Champagne to say Beaune, epicenter of the Burgundy wine district and again the Burgundy Wine Road north of the city is like the one near Colmar - strewn with wine villages like Nuits-Sts-Georges, etc.

From Beaune head to Dijon - return the car and take the train to Switzerland and on. You can't go wrong with either area but Burgundy may have slightly better weather, even in summer when northern Europe can be quite cool and rarely very hot - well not with climate change you never know!

neckervd

As we have not the slightest idea about what you plan to do at the places you mention, we don't know whether you need a car or not.
Dijon - Mulhouse - Colmar - Mulhouse - Lucerne - Biberbrugg - Sargans - Vaduz - Feldkirch - Lindau - Munich can easily be done by public transport.

PalenQ

As we have not the slightest idea about what you plan to do at the places you mention,>

they want to spend some time at vineyards either in Burgundy or Alsace and for that they would be best to have a car - but only that - the rest is best done by rail.

And even in Burgundy if they base in Beaune trains and buses stop at several neat little wine villages between Beaune and Dijon. Ditto for buses out of Colmar to wine towns north of it. In the small towns the vineyards often abut the winery itself and you can see for miles and miles of vineyards.

neckervd

That's what I meant: you don't need a car if you visit only the most popular places in famous vineyards, but you certainly need one if you plan to visit some remote untouristy vineyards.
Same remark for the vineyards in Suedbaden (Freiburg - Basel) and in Switzerland (Nyon - Yverdon - Neuchâtel - Biel/Bienne, Lausanne - Montreux - Aigle - Sion - Leuk, etc.)
But as i understand, Etepper is interested in French vineyards only.

Burgundy - Switzerland:
you need a car for panoramic itineraries through the gorges and over the mountains of Jura (with all kinds of castles and small museums, from solar and wind energy over watchmaking and painting up to Jean Jacques Rousseau). You don't need any car if you travel via either Mulhouse or Lausanne.

Vaduz - Munich:
by car you can choose very scenic itineraries through the Austrian and Bavarian Alps, by public transport you can't (at less not within a reasonable timeframe).
But why the detour via Vaduz?
Frankly: we know nothing about Etepper's plans.

PalenQ

Same remark for the vineyards in Suedbaden (Freiburg - Basel) and in Switzerland (Nyon - Yverdon - Neuchâtel - Biel/Bienne, Lausanne - Montreux - Aigle - Sion - Leuk, etc.)
But as i understand, Etepper is interested in French vineyards only.>

I've seen Swiss vineyards and though there are many they in no way compare to French wine houses - where you see the caves and see how wine is aged - and world-renown wines not Swiss wines that are rarely drunk beyond Switzerland. Not nearly the same- not nearly.

neckervd

The vinification processus is the same, however. But you are right: Swiss vine cellars are much smaller than many almost industrial looking French one's. In most Swiss vine cellars, the owner himself is guiding visitors, explains them the differencies between the types of grapes he is cultivating and comments the vine tasting.

bilboburgler

Given that the wine of Alsace and Champagne makes most sense. You could do Burgundy but it is a bit out of the way, then we get to Lichtenstein.

Imagine a small country town near where you live. Turn every building you know in that town into a brick and glass building of the same size or smaller and you've just been to the capital. There is nothing there. It is just a tax haven/software house.

I'd be concerned by the fees.

seat61.com teaches you about trains, unless you have a big thing about being in a car I'd drop it or just hire for the day.

PalenQ

Having been to both Alsace and Burgundy by bike and car I think the Burgundy vineyards and wine houses are more impressive than those of Alsace and the wines produced much more internationally prestigious than Alsace wines, which are largely somewhat sweet I think whereas Burgundy wines are the classic French red wines favored all over the world - some can be sweet like the ballyhooed Beaujolais that was such a marketing scheme in the U.S. not long ago with the Beaujolais Nouvbeau was released each November - but most Burgundy wines have the classic taste of dry or semi-dry French red wines.

If going to Switzerland Burgundy is not that much farther than Alsace from the parts of Switzerland most folks go to.

PalenQ

then we get to Lichtenstein.>

OK not much there there but I went there just to go there - being a stamp collector as a kid I just had to go there and it is a very unique place with all the banks in the capital Vaduz but a countryside that is sublimely pastoral - I never got to Vaduz but did jog thru several miles of its bucolic countryside once when I was staying in nearby Feldkirche, Austria.

Vaduz is still on my bucket list however just because it is the capital of Liechtenstein - and not just another town.

bilboburgler

Pal, it is just another town

Alsace wine "which are largely somewhat sweet", sorry, this is just wrong. The vast majority of these wines are made dry. They do have a range of medium sweet and super sweet wines but that is a minor part of the total production. What does tend to confuse the pallet is these wines are made to be fruity, what you can taste is fruit not sugar.

Beaujolais N is just rubbish as you say while aged Beaujolais can be very good (after the first 10 years). Burgundy is very much top of its game.

Agree with everything else

neckervd

I agree, some Beaujolais can get very good, but most Beaujolais, Baujolais Village, Fleurie, etc. are just the cheap vines for everyday.
Burgundy ha really better vines than those one's.