Yes that’s what I mean. (I just re-read my original post - it wasn’t clear)
Switch off in Strava - all disappeared
Switch back on - all reappear.
My point is that they reappear in their original state - not the state now set within TR. So there is no way to get the old image for rides that originally had the new image.
I, like you, assumed that switching integrations back on after unticking the “show progressions” box would generate old style images for the few recent rides I did - but it just brought back the “with progressions” image.
Reading between the lines - the real (transparent) answer is likely “AT isn’t smart enough yet to consider the actual work performed, but might be able to at some point in the future”. I’m not bashing on AT or TR, that is the same answer I’d instruct a support team member to give when pressed on the inner workings of the system. Giving fully transparent answers probably just upsets the masses who want everything to be perfect and sophisticated on day 1. As much as the inner workings may be proprietary and not appropriate to share, you also can’t expect all your support people to understand and/or explain the inner workings of complex system or articulate the future features and roadmap. I’ve had nothing but great experiences with TR support, but their strength is helping people execute/use the system, not explaining how the sausage is being make behind the curtain. From my perspective, TR support is doing things the right way.
I expect once TR can properly evaluate free-form rides and workouts (high priority feature from what I understand), the engine for that will have to be smarter about recognizing progressions in multiple zones within a single session. I assume(hope) the new logic/analysis for unstructured rides will also be leveraged on the canned workouts to evaluative results more on work performed rather than work planned. If I did something stupid like started a Z2 endurance workout in TR, but decided to do v02max intervals instead, ideally TR would look at that session exactly as if I had swapped in a V02max workout(which is what I actually executed). If it has the actual work results and also has the feedback about how hard it felt to me, the planned workout becomes irrelevant as a data point. At least that’s how I would envision it. Not easy, but I think you have to get there if you want things to work with unstuctured rides.
Definitely understand unstructured stuff will be a higher bar and take time, but those of course won’t go to Strava with PLs.
I just found it odd that TR would still classify a workout like that as purely threshold and guessed it may have been an oversight in their progression definitions they assigned? Similar to how we would sometimes find errors in how outdoor workouts were derived from indoor, it makes me wonder if the library is 100% scrubbed for accuracy in PLs.
In any case, posting PLs like that does run the risk of eroding credibility behind AT if the built in workouts aren’t all characterized correctly.
I think one of the biggest challenges of AT (and really any kind of training system) is that there is no right or wrong, everything is on a long continuum of “correctness”. This is a particularly true with the release of new systems and software. It’s the old adage “don’t let perfection get in the way or progress”. AT will never have workouts 100% “accurate” because perfection in this context is not possible. Of course it will get better, and probably much better since it’s just getting off the ground. I’d argue that the workout assessment functionality is a pretty immature part of the system right now, but that shouldn’t be seen as a negative. You can’t wait for everything to be fully baked and perfect before releasing a product.
AT reminds me of many years ago when we had Guy Kawasaki speak at one of our customer events. One of his mantras from his Apple days was “Don’t worry, be crappy”. It sounds really negative (not something to say in a product launch announcement) and I’m careful about using it with folks who won’t understand the message behind it, but it’s a really important concept for teams wanting to innovate and bring big new ideas to market. I’d argue that AT is in the “crappy” stage where they have many good ideas that are still part of the vision, but not yet released. There were probably people on the team that didn’t think AT was ready for release until it supported unstructured rides. That doesn’t mean the new “crappy” AT system isn’t currently awesome and maybe the best training system in the world, it’s just saying that it’s probably just scraping the surface of what is possible and I’d bet TR has a long list of things they want to do to make it better. Or at least that’s my hope.
I think that establishing what zones a TR-supplied workout targets is crucially important to get right before you take the step of advertising the results of said workouts and how they affect PL in automated Strava feeds. We’re not talking about a complicated problem here. The workout is defined with many VO2max repeats in TR’s own definition already. This has nothing to do with measuring compliance against the workout, or over/under achieving. Really basic. What PLs does this workout supplied by TR target?
And again, don’t get me wrong - I like AT as I come back from a major crash. While it was an extremely disappointing long delay before it became meaningfully usable for me, I waited it out thanks to grandfathered annual plan pricing and the fact that key functionality was finally released the week I was due to make a renewal decision. I’m still allowing the images on my feed, so consider me a supporter.
So that’s all great - but when they take the step to advertising the AT/PL system - which moves from just presenting facts (workout trace / HR / power) - to “here’s a workout we designed and how it affects this user’s PLs” - then it does set the expectation pretty high that that tiny little piece of AT is spot-on correct. If not, then it raises questions about what state of maturity the system is really in - esp. for people that aren’t hardcore TR fans that are using the software today. So if I was in charge and saw dubious assessments flying out onto people’s strava feeds, I’d certainly want to get that cleared up so it doesn’t become a negative impression.
Or, maybe I’m wrong and someone from TR can chime in and explain why 12x 1-min at 120% in a threshold set is not considered at all relevant to VO2max, but 15x 1-min at 120% in an otherwise soft-pedal ride would be.
@SamApo , I’m having the exact same problem. They have me on the Windows Beta since I’m troubleshooting another bug, so I wonder if the Beta has a bug with this as well?
Feature Request: add an Export Image option to activity dropdown menu. This would provide a workaround for the race condition, and a backup for when the Strava API upload fails. It would also allow users to post the image on other platforms (Facebook, Reddit, etc.). More free marketing for TR.
I don’t understand the controversy. Strava is social media. If you don’t like your training data being public, don’t share it.
I recently disconnected my Strava acct from my TR acct because I didn’t like the feeling of showing up to local races everyone commenting on “how much I’ve been riding lately”.
I use a Garmin head unit, so for a private log of all my training/riding, I have my Garmin Connect app connected to TR.
I always chuckle when people say that because it’s usually followed by them saying how little they ride and yet they’re super strong…whatever you say pal
Yes, that is apparent, you are only looking this from your limited pointed of view and not considering others, the wider picture.
Why do people use social media, maybe not the same reason you do, or think they do?
What is the main issue that people had an issue with, something that changed? It happened without their knowledge?
No one said they weren’t happy sharing their current data as they understood what would to be published, you can hide power, heart rate, that doesn’t mean you don’t want to be on your clubs leader boards and it doesn’t mean you want to share additional information without being consulted. It also doesn’t mean that some do not want to share a brief overview of their sessions / training.
So maybe if you thought a more bit deeply you might start to understand why some people had an issue with this change.
I have found a reverse correlation between the alleged levels of fitness claimed by riders before a race and their actual performance. They guys who claim to have only dusted their bike off a week ago are the ones launching (and sticking) solo breakaways halfway through the race or delivering 1200 watts for 90 seconds in the last lap.
I see I might have taken your original comment a bit too literally, I assumed you meant you didn’t understand others view points or thought their concerns weren’t valid.
After reading your reply the last sentence of my post seems a bit harsh. I therefore apologise for the final sentence of my post.
All good, peace.
