Right click menu on the workout - edit ride, then select ‘fixed’ under endurance duration and pick your time.
Been using TR for 7 years, successfully, and have always trusted the process, understand the value of honesty with the surveys etc
I guess I was looking more for an explanation as to what is going on with the new FTP detection, how it works, why it being higher than it really is is ok etc. Like I said, I haven’t been paying attention to TR at all since last summer. But I do understand the basics of how the system works, trust…all that stuff.
Sounds like you are looking for more of a shake-out recovery ride than one that will build endurance?
So, are we all just going to ignore that FTP has an actual definition, if an imperfect one? Its still a pretty good metric to base workouts off of. Previously I found FTP detection to be pretty spot on with what I would get with a ramp test or 20 minute test. Why would this number deviate so much (26 watt increase in my case) from the accepted definition of that value? There’s a lot of “trust the process” posts and I’m sure the software will prescribe workout that are attainable, things will adjust and plans can still be productive, but why cant that be the case with an FTP number that is realistic?
The cynical side of me thinks this is to make people more reliant on TR and their plans and therefore subscription in order to train. I’m sure there are also those who are going to be more than happy to rock up to the group ride in the spring with a 20 watt higher FTP than last year and tell everyone its cause of TrainerRoad. Pretty brilliant honestly.
Personally I have never really been a fan of TRs plans but I’ve stuck around and made my own because I like the platform and analysis tools, even as they have made it harder and harder to use it outside of the structure they want. (Seaching workouts, unable to modify phase plans in plan builder, I could go on) An accurate FTP detection was a nice feature to have but now I’m just paying for a calendar and a bogus FTP number. Unless someone can explain to me why I’m way off base this might be the thing to push me to TrainingPeaks.
But just as many people have their FTP drop as rise. So once the master plan there? 
Have you listened to the two podcasts dropped today. Lots covered in them (about an hour and a half each). Worth a listen as this is more like a new product than an update.
I remember seeing your question in the beta test thread as well. Open question (not at all debating your position) - why are you using those other systems? I only really use TR, have never considered how other systems would improve my training.
What is your goal with your training? Why do you want high volume?
Wouldn’t you want to know if your training is counter productive?
Have you got ‘fatigue detection’ turned off in settings? If you do, then the AI shouldn’t change your future workouts based on red/yellow alerts (though those alerts will still be visible). You can also pin future workouts and they will remain unaffected by AI changes.
Like I said, being a little cynical, but I maintain that FTP is a value with a definition. Perhaps they could have come up to another term to identify this new black box generated training number to avoid confusion?
I guess I’m just a numbers guy so I’m frustrated that things have become less transparent and harder to understand what’s going on. I guess most people do just want to open the app and pedal and not think about how the workout got on their screen so what can I do.
Are you suggesting that riding for 4 hours a week and doing all high intensity rides isn’t the gold standard for building endurance?? Herecy!!
I subscribe to Empirical Cycling’s philosophy of keeping endurance rides super easy plus I ride outside a ton on the weekends (Usually 8-12 hours) so endurance is already addressed there. Keeping the inside sessions easy helps me nail harder and harder interval workouts. Changing my endurance zone to conservative had no effect on my predicted AIFTP in 3 weeks so why push harder on my easy days?
Getting the directional feedback of FTP Prediction to help identify the proper amount of training load I can handle is the crux feature for me in this update. After a few months of progress, I’d bumped the training approach slider up in an attempt to get faster more quickly (despite the clear warnings) and have felt like I’ve been surviving just fine. My FTP hasn’t been increasing as I’d hoped, so I’ve been riding adding longer easy rides. I guess “surviving” isn’t the best way to get faster and FTP Prediction has estimated that a more conservative approach will help me. I’d hate to think how long it might have taken me to identify that my issue was that I was riding too much if you hadn’t added this feature. If I can really sneak in a 6% increase before my race next month, I’ll be over the moon!
Which of the many definitions do you want to use? The amount of power you can hold for an hour? Maximal lactate steady state? How do you test it to know the true value and not an estimate/guess?
What is the importance of this number? How much effort should be put into calculating it?
Trainerroad is now estimating an FTP of 204W and predicting an FTP of 202W after 16 workouts (24 days), -1%.
The first reading is too low (but whatever), but what is the point in following a series of workouts that is going to lower my FTP even more?
How does the new program measure outdoor rides based on heart rate alone? In the past, I felt like TrainerRoad did a better job of measuring my fatigue and improvements when I used a power meter for unstructured outdoor rides.
@Nate_Pearson You mentioned there is an 18-hour limit on the maximum ride time (or something like that) and that the new program would struggle with events like RAAM? I am doing some bikepacking races this usmmer proablly 4ish days with minimal sleep - how should I enter that in TrainerRoad? In past, I have been using “stage race”.
Stoked to use the new platform, keep up the cutting-edge work
Hi TR,
My initial impression of the new release is great. My FTP went down but it now more realistic value and i get new workouts for me, great!
My question is regarding the post workout survey. Is it possible to say how much your model take the post workout survey inte account in comparison to the HR/power data from the workout itself?
I wonder since, even with the guidance, i am having trouble to know how to rank. My issue is mainly with the “you’ll look forward to this ride ending” part of hard. Only on really easy workouys do i look forward to it ending.
Can you take a screenshot of your calendar? So you are riding 2 out of every three day (66%)… how many of those are considered intensity (estimated “hard” or above)? What block of training are you in?
Would be interesting to see what is happening with this.
TR team, great new features…. Any time line on when the full range of training plan features will be available on the triathlon plans?