Not to mention that they have done several tri focused and Successful Athlete podcasts talking to TR users that applied the plans above to get to various big ticket tris, including Ironman Worlds in Kona.
As of now, the Run / Swim stuff is pure text in the Week Descriptions with simple placeholders for the workouts on the calendar. As mentioned, is primitive compared to the integrated cycling workouts, but it is all there for use and been applied by many tri athletes.
I guess “primitive” it is optimal adjective to use to describe the triathlon plans. I stand by my original point that TR is best in class for cycling but there are better options for someone who wants a “full suite” of triathlon plans. Yes I admit I shouldn’t be suggesting users go elsewhere. I was just trying to be constructive for the sake of the post.
Just to keep it on the original topic - yes please devote more time to other features to stay best in class for cycling.
Trying to somewhat steer this into the development area without drilling too deep into the triathlon instance:
I think TR focuses on what’s quantifiable, both in terms of what moves the needle most for their athletes and in terms of of the instance of training plans. I think Tri is hard for TR, because running power isn’t even agreed upon by science, and swimming effectively has no corollary. Trainerroad has data-based cycling plans, RPE based running plans scaled to the distance of race you’re training for, and standard swim sets. Triathlon plans just aren’t an are where they can’t clearly find a niche to be different. As a result of that instance, I think they don’t pursue it hard because they (IMO) don’t see a clear path to added value.
Start applying a data-driven mindset to development, and you get a focus on large swath movements at the expense of QOL improvements sitting there. Is a QOL improvement good? Yes, but is it good enough to pull dev time away from something that will tangibly bring in new users / keep existing ones? There’s a balance.
Looking forward to AT and outside workout recognition (even though not sure if Xert has it solved in a better way). So kudos for that!
But on the other hand AT seems to drown all resources like a black hole and at the same time this forum has so many feature requests that have been put to the team for consideration yet so rare we see progress of any.
With swim/run import it’s so frustrating as Nate has a simple prototype working for years/many month…with some final push missing to have some MVP for us to use .
This stagnation is especially frustrating if you look at the astonishing site one single programmer has done in that time with intervals.icu …
This has happened a lot over the years, usually with an entire rewrite of the code base dragging on forever and completely stagnating the product. It’s done with the caveat that they’ll be able to implement features quicker in the future, but it doesn’t seem to happen that way (maybe the new features would come about even slower?)
I was going to mention this as well - - it’s been working for years behind the scenes which makes it even more frustrating.
Also agree with this one! And he doesn’t have the plethora of subscription based users behind him.
I’m not talking solely about uploading activities, I’m talking about the way the plans are actually structured and built. It’s a bit outside of the scope of this discussion but it takes only a pretty cursory glance to look at the plans and understand the cycling side is extremely science and metrics based and the other two are not.
It will take years of sustained and focused development for AT to become what Nate has described the goal to be. Bugs still need to be fixed and other improvements still need to be made in the meantime.
General quality of life improvements can’t be ignored.
I don’t think telling users to go somewhere else is in opposition to the forum guidelines. Quite literally TR has said multi sport plans are not their priority. If someone wants that as the priority of their coach/plan, users should look to change service providers.
Triathlon may not be the priority (CLEARLY that’s AT…), but Triathlon plans have been part of TR almost since the beginning, like for at least 7-9 years. They started with the Weekly Notes being what was referenced for the Swim and Run workouts. Then after the Calendar came about the Swim and Run workouts were (eventually) loaded into the calendar as separate activities to manually check off…like 3-4 years ago? Of course, since a lot of people use other plans for Swim and Run and also because the Swim and Run activities weren’t uploaded anyway there was a call to be able to just add the Cycling portion of the plans without having to go through and delete all the extra Swim and Run activities (this still hasn’t happened either…). When Plan Builder came about you were able to set your A/B/C events as Triathlons and have Plan Builder adapt to your schedule. AT even loosely works with the Swim and Run workouts right now. So it’s not like those asking for a little bit of Tri love are asking for huge ideas built from the ground up–most of it’s already there (including activity uploads, just behind the scenes).
They even used to plug athletes who excelled using their plans…
You’re talking about rebuilding plans, but the biggest ask from the 3+ year old request thread is just to upload the activities and a bonus feature of having it check off a box automatically. Certainly rebuilding the plans is a larger undertaking, but going back to the intervals.icu end of things all that data “can” be there if the will is there, which of course it isn’t unfortunately.
I mean, I feel like we’re debating the details. My answer for everything is basically: yes. Yes, I think the calendar should support imported workouts. Yes, I think the triathlon plans should be improved. Yes, I understand that the scope of these two things are different.
I mean, you’re not wrong that people want their workouts to be imported. I don’t disagree that it’s not world changing it doesn’t exists, but it’s also sort of a pretty standard cost of entry for a sports coaching system that displays the work you’ve done. I think it’s simultaneously not critical but also something people point to and are like, “hey, nearly a DECADE later, can you please show all our work in one place?” TrainerRoad has triathlon plans, it’s a not unreasonable request. I don’t feel compelled to dive deeper than that; I think it’s pretty self apparent what the request is. If you don’t see value In it, that’s fine. Others do.
Your scenario (someone emphasizing that despite the presence of tri plans, TR is more devoted to cycling at this time) is quite different from what I read in the post to which I replied. I’m quoting it below, along with my take on it to explain why I said what I said.
This reads to me like a cyclist that believes TR is ONLY connected to cycling and he wants to keep it that way, in order to preserve TR’s valuable time and efforts for advancement of cycling features. It’s like he is saying that there is nothing there for them, and they should go else where vs asking for tri related features in TR. That is why I made my comment above.
It is somewhat emphasized since he was apparently unaware of the existence of the tri plans that they have offered for many years. That leads to his “go somewhere else” comment being rather negative per my reading.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; it’s the little things that make using the product easier that makes me a more satisfied customer. These constant big releases where other areas (especially bug fixes) get shelved, or sometimes never even get considered, is my biggest frustration with TR.
I took @Rob’s comment to be an opinion that TR isn’t currently / hasn’t for a while (outside perception) expending resources to add features / functionality targeted at the Triathlon market - except as it relates to AT & cycling workouts. And therefore Triathlon focused athletes should look for alternatives that are focused on / expending resources on the needs of triathletes. Long way of signing I don’t think there was anything “wrong” with his post.