Not meant that way at all. Just clarifying the point that this is effectively a new/repeated request by the same person as the existing one already in the system.
Again, we should be using the existing threads that you already started, rather than adding another separate thread. That is driven from Nate himself, via the
We’re using a Discourse forum and it has a lot of cool features. Please use the appropriate category and add tags when you post.
If you do that, it will be much easier for other users to find content in the future.
Despite how easy or hard this may be (and we should admit that we really don’t know), TR sorts any request in their system based on their internal goals (that we have no way of knowing) along with general user request, and the apparent range of need or use of any new tool.
That matters because in this case, we don’t see a bunch of people asking for it (unlike the many, many people asking for swim/run stuff I linked above). My speculation, but I suspect it is unlikely for them to add something like this that seemingly has a very narrow use case.
Couple that with their already stated stance on speed and distance being largely unnecessary for their goals, I would not expect this to be added anytime soon. I may well be wrong, so who knows what to expect from them?
The only real thing to do with these is make the suggestion and wait patiently.
my cadence was constant around 100rpm, and based on flywheel speed the Kickr reported 25mph. No matter I was doing 275W for a minute, then 90W for a minute. That is totally ridiculous!!!
Later on in that same workout I shifted from big ring to little ring. At the same 100rpm cadence my Strava speed dropped to 14mph.
Your request, when done correctly, is harder to implement than you think.
There is no “correct” way to do it. You either take the wheel/spindle speed (what you are showing), or a “calculated” virtual speed (Zwift-style). Both are relatively simple, the algorithm for the first one being a lot simpler.
I gather that given the objective of TR is to deliver training to make us faster cyclists, and given that displaying this data does not add to the objective for the vast majority of users, the probability of implementation is low. The good news is that there are work-around available.
That was only reason I tried Zwift after buying a smart trainer - to get realistic speed and distance data. And then decided I wasn’t going anywhere and it was more important to focus on hours and what type of work I was doing during those hours.
It would be far more useful and interesting to me than a ton of other more headline grabbing updates that probably get used less than the developers hoped for.
guess thats possible, but just looking at our leaderboard the first guy I know is #4 this week with three (Mon/Tue/Thur) rides for a total of 180-miles and 12.5 hours.
Again, as non-TR employee I may be wrong, but that is not how they work.
They have never done that in the 5 years I have been a customer.
Correction to the italics above: Brian shared one example of a survey on the forum.
The whole reason that the TrainerRoad Software category, with “Feature Request” in the name, and “feature-request” tag exist is for the purpose to obtain and discuss ideas like this.
Users are encouraged to make threads, add comments and add their “+1” vote to existing threads, in order to help them see what their customers want.
This is no different, and part of the reason I merged the separate threads. This is the place for them to hear from you and anyone else that wants this.
I’ve got some myself IMHO there is too much discussion in this thread on stuff that doesn’t matter including statements about no TR surveys Help us improve TrainerRoad! (Survey)).
Trying to get this thread back on a more productive track… I heard Nate on the podcast say they judge many new features based on a simple question “will it make you faster?” And back to my original point, its best to assume this isn’t a trivial feature to implement and so its going to go on a prioritized list. There are a long list of things people want, along with things that TR wants to implement to stay competitive. And IMHO at a high-level those are the only two things that matter - priority and effort-to-implement.
I think you should argue from the “this will help make me faster” standpoint. The workaround right now is to look at a TT result, for example (don’t laugh at my big guy on endurance bike non-aeroness) one of my Merckx class no-aerobar 10 mile TT has this in Strava description “27:47 / 21.6mph / 281W / 159bpm / 69 degrees / wind 5mph SSW.” Most of that info is useless in virtual world, unless I’m feeding it and the course into Best Bike Split.
Bear with me for a minute, this is going somewhere I promise… Thinking out loud, if TR wants to help make me faster on a TT then I would sure like to be able to set a workout goal to exceed 281W average power for 28 minutes. And since TR is my partner to help make me faster, on the trainer I might start doing Lola a 30-minute practice TT workout. Or maybe focus late build phase on power goals for 30-minute intervals.
Wouldn’t it be really nice if TR somehow incorporated goal tracking like that, a power goal for a target duration? Goes along with what we hear on the podcast - know the demands of your target event and train for it. Guess I’d rather have that than fake speed, even if the fake speed were pretty accurate (aka riding solo in Zwift).
IMHO there is too much discussion in this thread on stuff that doesn’t matter including statements about no TR surveys