Some definite strangeness here (I assume caused by time off)…
Two ramp tests within four days!
On a similar thread to the post above, PB loves to put Monday FTP tests after Saturday marathon endurance events, here’s one example from my winter calendar:
I am guessing that is at least related to the fact you have it set as a ‘C’ event.
That, and if it happens towards the end of one phase, and beginning of another, the typical expectation is that you start a new phase with a test. It’s possible that choosing a different event level will alter results.
I tried reassigning it as a B priority and rebuilt the plan–no change. I guess it’s related to the fact that the phase ends that week, but still a weird way to do it. I would expect it to at least give me something like West Vidette on Monday and push the FTP test to Wednesday, if not further out.
1 Like
One of many signs that the underlying mechanics of PB are very simple and mechanistic. Another one being that there is a very fixed idea how volume and number of workout days are distributed across the week which I find to be the biggest showstopper. I.e. what’s the point having PB trying to be smart and do everything for you based on some given race dates if it is clear from the very start that High or even Mid Volume is distributed so far from you basic needs (i.e only wanting to train 5 days a week or having a more even distribution of workout durations between week days and weekends) that you would have to painstakingly touch every single workout or if you choose a low volume plan throwing PB off by not that much less painstaking adding / switching out weekend rides?
Couldn’t care less about PB but with TR putting more and more emphasis on it and even hinging the whole AT functionality more or less on PB methinks the very simple and basic functionality of PB has to be addressed by TR.
I, for one, are feeling less and less catered for by TR.
2 Likes
- That’s not the case. You can manually add the TR training plans as we did in the old days, and AT will adapt them as needed. They added that functionality in late summer.
2 Likes
Oh come on, what does “more or less” and “hinging” mean to you? 
In no way, shape or form I said anything along the lines that PB is an absolute necessity to use AT (or some/most of the additional functions added alongside or for it).
But with the whole mindset of the TR crew surfacing in really every podcast that you really should use PB and the removal of any functionality which might or indeed does throws off the seemingly very delicate fabric of AT really doesn’t add but takes away the convenience and user experience of the platform. Case in point: the removal of pushing weeks in the calendar. You yourself contributed in that thread, btw.
I get it, easy now. Your words were ambiguous and I felt some clarity was useful.
- I pointed out a very specific detail that was added with minimal fanfare, and plenty of people don’t even know about yet.
Well, PB is a valid solution for the nearly endless “What plan and what sequence should I follow?” questions that flooded their support, podcast and forum. We still see them today< so pointing to PB still has value IMO. PB is not a cure all, but it’s a fine place to start in many cases. Even if someone uses it to try a few scenarios, and ends up doing their own ad hoc plan, it is a useful tool.
Sure, removal of Push/Pull sucks. I’ve been public and open with my concerns (no need to remind me, btw) and still want them to fix it. That’s also the case for several other things I’ve also criticized openly. There is room for improvement as always. We do our best to give feedback and make suggestions and let TR run with it.
3 Likes
Yes, so no need to sweat the details or detriment from the - I certainly hope so - also seen and shared main point of the issue at hand: the long standing and (I’d hope so) very low hanging fruit of making PB a bit more flexible to start with.
And in regards of “hinging”: think about it this way: you have a certain amount of care taken and functionality of the platform which is profiting or even needing PB. And others which aren’t touched by it. For simplicities sake lets say it’s 50 % for each at a given point in time.
Now you could sway the value proposition of your platform for a given demographic two-fold. Adding to the portion “behind” or needing PB. That would arguably be the best option because it would overall enhance the platform even if the net result for people where PB isn’t working for is the same: the relative ratio of the sum of features is going down. Despite actually staying at the same absolute number.
But actually, we are seeing also partly another way: The portion “behind” or needing PB stays the same (if our snapshot in time would be after adding AT) but the portion “in front” of PB is getting smaller (because of removing very nice features for doing you own adjustments in the calendar). Now one part of the demographic doesn’t get any new functionality but another part is seeing their experience diminished.
You don’t have to agree, but it’s a relatively emotionless ongoing evaluation of value proposition for anyone using a platform.