Where is the second image from? Looks like it’s missing the drop down menu that gives you the options of similar, easier, harder, etc…
1 Like
Thank you @cnidos for the feedback 
I have taken the feedback on the Workout Library, to see if we can make it more friendlier to how you’re using it.
I was able to reproduce the behavior on the app when scheduling a workout, so I am taking this to the bugs team! In the meantime it may be best to schedule them straight from the web if that’s easiest for you.
2 Likes
That’s the windows app.
First image was chrome.
1 Like
Ok, let me take this to the devs!
2 Likes
It is a custom plan but I hadn’t noticed the ability to replace the interval type so I’ll have to go take a look at that 
I’ve said it before, but now it seems to gain traction and I like the wording. Hard to describe precisely, but I used to find an alternate I like easier/faster with the previous interface. +2 on this one, for my girlfriend and myself.
Yes, especially the options for longer or shorter workouts, it doesn’t make sense the criteria used. They just offer one suggestion for every 15 minutes time difference. So if you’re trying to reduce duration of a 1:15 workout you will only get one suggestion each for 1:00, 0:45 and 0:30 workouts. So instead of 6 alternates your only given 3. Certainly there’s multiple 1:00 and 0:45 alternates with similar training impact, so why not offer them up?
Yesterday I discovered the following:
You can edit the length of the workout directly. In this case, the AI will then pic the perfect workout for this length.
2 Likes
Yes, that is a better way. Or select whatever shorter alternate it gives and then select a similar alternate from that shorter workout. It’s just that if they’re going to offer the shorter alternatives right there (which I want them to do), why not make them better?
The new interface has lots of ways to do the same thing. That’s good for discoverability and convenience. But some of the methods give worse or misleading results, which is bad.
1 Like
For those of us us who have used TR for years and have a decent idea of how difficult a workout is by just looking at the blue graph, does the TR team realize just how scary these generic representations look? 
8 Likes
Funny that the endurance ride has higher TSS than the other two. Does a Score of 150 not imply that all the ride would be at Threshold, more or less?
Curious to what the TR team thinks about this one. I got sick during my last training block. I ended up taking 5 days off the bike completely. I attempted a sweet sport workout way too early, then did a few days of endurance and one day of tempo in the recovery week. Understandably, my FTP prediction went down to my current FTP level (351).
Now I’m back on a training block (Base), completed my two sweet spot workouts without any problem and AI FTP Prediction went down to 347. Today was the day for a new AI FTP Detection, but I decided to complete the Threshold O/U workout before detecting my new FTP. I completed Bounty without any problems (3.9 workout level), did the AI FTP detection afterwards and it came up with 349.
Now a 2W decrease in my FTP is basically a rounding error, so I decided to keep my current FTP of 351 to protect my ego a little. I thought I performed well enough post sickness to keep my current FTP, so I was surprised to see AI FTP detection take me down a little.
I’m curious to what the TR team thinks about how the AI is interpreting my performance. @Caro.Gomez-Villafane - what do you think? Thanks!!
Here’s my calendar: Log In to TrainerRoad
How well does this new ai FTP correlate to a ramp test and a more standard way of measuring FTP? That I can use a % of for pacing. I am doing the Mallorca 312 in April so looking to average around top end zone2 and do the climbs at tempo/low sweetspot.
I went from 286w to 298w during the beta phase of this new AI FTP. I just got my 28 day update today and it went to 313w! It’s now predictiing my next 28 day FTP will be 336w!!
The highest FTP I have ever seen using a ramp test was 309 and that was a five years ago! I’m 40 now, so not getting any younger. I have hovered around 270-300w for the last couple of years. I recently did an effort on a climb during a training camp where it was ~300w for 33 minutes and I wasn’t totally fresh so I feel like my FTP is probably closer to 300w but not sure it’s 313 and no clue how its going to be 336 in a month. Unless I have made some massive breakthrough in my training. I have been doing triahtlon for the last few years and switched to a pure block of cycling for the last few months but even so that seems a bit nuts to me but I will trust the AI to pick my workouts as it hasn’t failed me yet!
2 Likes
According to tr aiFTP detection is estimating FTP. In theory then you should be able to use that ai number the same way you use FTP.
I think the reality is different. Personally the old model worked better for me.
3 Likes
I completely agree but that is what TR is saying so 
.
At this point they have seemingly decided on their model and I don’t think that’s going to change until the next one comes along.
3 Likes
Sorry to argue a bit here. But this is simply way to confusing or complex for the average user.
I just want the modelled power-duration curve so I have an estimate on how much power I am able or deliver for a given amount of time.
I don’t care about level 3,4,7,9 at threshold/sweet-spot/supra-threshold or whatever. That is to complex for me to get my head around. It needs to be easy understandable how to translate it into real world pacing estimates
3 Likes
The interesting part now is I read all these complaints on why does my FTP prediction change.
The focus is on the outcome not the logic to get there.
2 Likes
Maybe you fall into my theory here:
1 Like