The problem is, the system need, by definition, an input and a expected output. On a structured wo, you know exactly what should happen at all times and what actually happened. On an outdoor ride, itās harder to account if the power drop was because you are tired or because going downhill. Or of your intention was to go hard at random times for a random period of timeā¦ Itās not easyā¦ If it was everyone would do itā¦
They said if you do a structured wo outdoors it will count. Maybe a work around is creating a long wo and try to follow itā¦ Maybeā¦
Who said they donāt have stock holders? The do. They need investment and they more than likely got it and had to give shares.
Now I donāt know who has the controlling portion, but based on how the prices have not gone up, i would guess nate and a close group of investor have itā¦
First - a huge congrats to the TR team. This is amazing stuff. Love that youāre incorporating this, love the laser-like focus on a clean, simple UI/UX - people that want to dig around can, for the rest of us, we have an easy-to-use interface that abtracts everything away; itās beautiful.
One question that Iām sure has been answered but I couldnāt find it here: I do a fair number of rides on other platforms. Those rides show up in TR. How will AT take this into account? Completely ignoring it canāt be good - the athlete is doing some work, and youād assume thereās some power / HR / TSS data that could be taken into account. But TR would have no idea of how easy / hard the ride was supposed to be. I suppose we could go in and update survey questions for each ride, which may help?
From what I understand, @Nate_Pearson has mentioned before that TR is entirely bootstrapped, and that heās actually turned down investment opportunities so he can retain and have greater control over the company, its culture, its roadmap, etc.
They are working on getting the ML up to speed on classifying outdoor rides where the desired outcome is unknown, but that they are not there yet. So it doesnāt use it now, but will 100% use it in the future.
I think there are some assumptions that arenāt true here. If the system wants to make a prediction of the outcome prior to the workout, then yes it needs a āplannedā workout. That lets it makes guesses on a specific progression.
To make predictions on adaptations from an effort it shouldnāt need what the plan was. The challenge would be that it canāt pool a ton of similar efforts to get a big enough corpus to make predictions on. Would have to play with abunch of signals like TiZ, length and number of segments in a particular power range, work done prior to the individual efforts, etc.
They claim to be close on it. If theyāve gotten as far as they claim they have I donāt see why they couldnāt bridge that last little gap. Interested to see if it is effective.
No doubt Iāve missed this somewhere but what do the numbers after the workout type represent (ie. Threshold or VO2 max 9.8) & are those individualized?
Youāre heading down a tangent from the original comments which was about an IPO. Not all stockholders are the same and a closely held private company is very different to a public one.
The vo2max 9.8 is the classification of the workout difficulty, if I understand correctly, so that isnāt individualized. So out of 10, TR must have thought that workout was damn near the hardest type of vo2 workout one can do?
Does Adaptive Training also make changes to the overall training plan? There was some discussion about what happens during time off (travel/illness) in terms of adjusting your levels, but Iām wondering if it also re-shuffles what type of workouts you do (e.g., go back to base rather than picking up in the latter part of build, where you left off).
Very very cool stuff, and driven by what will help users.
True. But, for example, zwift have very aggressive investors. So they do stuff based on what investors wanted. And for a period of time they were going nowhere. So, IPO, or private investors, itās similarā¦
Tesla is public and elon musk doesnāt give a shit about investor feeling.
So not about the investors , but the ceo. And I think @Nate_Pearson is a very generous ceo and he seems to care about their users and their employees. So thanks nate for caring about your product
EDIT: this pricing āsplitā I had in mind is under review. Not sure what we will do yet. I see pros/cons to having it hear as well as separated.
Splitting it will be a royal pain, and is not clean cut since there is overlapping discussion on AT mixed with pricing. āEasyā is to leave everything as-is, so that may be the solution, and it makes sense in ways as well. LOL, me being indecisive as usual.
I am going to pull the āpricingā stuff into a separate thread (as I alluded to in the part you didnāt quote).
But it takes time to sift and pull those out, and mixing that with my āreal jobā is a challenge, but it will happen.
I think this is what they have right now. Probably the rest will be done in a near featureā¦ But is hard to understand what was the intention of the ride. Not all .71IF rides are the sameā¦
Awesome feature! A few things Iād like to point out that I think you missed however.
As an older rider I always wondered why this feature wasnāt already present. It just made sense to have on day one. What took so long? I mean itās just code! Sheesh.
Also, as an older rider I donāt like change. Disc brakes? No! Carbon frames? No! Lycra that isnāt completely worn and doesnāt smell like brut 33? Nope! Now that the feature is here what do I complain about now? Iāve settled into my Base Build Speciality and I am not changing.
Last but not the least of my complaints whatās my excuse when I donāt hit a workout? It seems you thought of everything and for that Iām truly hurt.
Guess Iāll take my old arse over to Zuffer Fest or whatever they call it.
In all seriousness, well done TR team. Canāt wait to try the new cycling AI.
