No doubt. A swap to something unique seems like it could have been better, TRPower or whatever they like. But to entirely redefine it within the context of TR (Threshold Lvl3?) and then claim that’s OK because FTP doesn’t have a concrete definition in the world, sure seems wrong to me. The TR value is entirely detached from the rest of the FTP world (as fuzzy as that is) and is causing predictable confusion.
They could just come up with a new term, like Wahoo did with the 4DP methodology. Then you’re not confused.
All discussed previously in beta. Nothing being raised here now is new - all discussed previously ad infinitum. TR made a decision and clearly are not for turning on this, else that would already have occurred weeks/months ago…
The 20min/60min estimates raised by Nate in the beta, and issued one-off for some people, offers a good path forward I feel. Let’s see if we hear more about that once this release has bedded in a bit and dev resources can be redirected. ![]()
I agree, but you just know it will spark a whole new round of “I don’t care about 20 or 60 minute power, that’s not my definition of FTP” ![]()
Hey team — first off, thanks a lot for the great work you’ve been doing. The new updates are awesome.
Quick thought about the new implementation: with the post-workout survey where we rate how hard the workout felt, do you think it would also be useful to mark when the activity was actually a race instead of a structured workout?
I feel like that extra context could help the AI better interpret the perceived difficulty and avoid misreading race efforts as failed or overly hard workouts. Curious if this is already considered or on the roadmap.
Would love to hear your thoughts.
If I could like this multiple times I would.
At the same time - I still haven’t seen Nate and Jonathan do a great job on talking about what FTP is and every time they try - it feels like they muddy the waters more. I mean heck, they could literally just link to the GCN interview with Coggan and Hunter Allen and restate and explain a couple quick points, maybe review and explain what they said. (Side note, how funny is it that a GCN video is actually what gets this best
)
Glitch in the universe ![]()
I hope instead of 20/60min TR will just show a modeled curve of your predicted ability in your power chart so you’ll have all data points. (Otherwise I’d ask myself why TR shows 20+60min and not sth around 45min when most people seem to have trained along a power they could probably hold like 40-50min.)
If you were doing a race, why not include that on your calendar?
Something I have noticed is the 5 minutes or so Z1 at the end of each workout has disappeared as has the ability to add time for recovery at the end of a workout.
There must be a valid reason for this. Anyone know why?
Told ya ![]()
Great post. Thank you.
Was the above feature discussed in the Beta group (or otherwise, do you / others have any insights on if this is coming) - i.e. TrainerRoad generating and reporting an estimate for power-at-max-lactate-steady-state? Call this “Real world FTP” to distinguish from “TrainerRoad Training FTP”.
Having multiple FTP’s was discussed ad nauseam.
Say more - what was general consensus among users? among TR staff?
Same as here in the open forum.
Like this.
If this topic matters to you, be sure to check out the AACC podcast episodes from this week. It’s covered at length by Nate and Jon. There are two separate episodes.
They lay out their thinking pretty plainly.
Yup. Seems like their AI system would be able to do a pretty good job at this.
I do agree it should be easy and would be great to have, but I also wonder if it creates a large cost (and energy waste) increase to have to calculate infinite minute possibilities every time every user logs in or makes any change. It might be a lot more intensive to calculate every possible time point 4 weeks into the future than something like intervals.icu showing you your historical power curve across 5-10 time segments.
Let people pick one third time point in the middle. Then all good.