TR Price Increase to $189.95/year ($19.95/month)


@Supercyril my thoughts exactly. Some users may not want anymore features so a tierd “lite” and “advanced” might justify a price increase for new or prospective users. Likewise existing users who only use it periodically might want to downsize on a monthly subscription.

I personally like TR as it is, and am scratching my head of what additional features I would be looking for.

As an aside , for those who would like a UK based coach and pay just 50% of the quoted US$ monthly fee, please get in touch.

Sure it would. I for one don’t use them. The “core” of TR workouts and plans is all I need. It would be a simple concept to have a TR Basic, TR Premium etc. Lots of apps do this. I think the question is what percentage of TR users will make use of new features. I am guessing there is a good proportion simply want a basic training package. There is also a good proportion, you know the kind that also follow and post on forums, that want as much as possible. One size fits all generally doesn’t fit all well. If TR has done their homework and determined that the tools they provide as value-add have high usage rates across their subscriber base then maybe I’m the outlier, but on the other hand if they “build it and tehy will come” then tiered make more sense.

In my case:

I don’t race/compete and don’t need/want a “coach” so saying it’s cheaper than a coach is moot.

I don’t do outdoor workouts - never will, I train indoors to enjoy outdoor rides

I don’t do triathlons - will never use swim/run features

I don’t use analysis features

I don’t use other platforms so integration or replacement for others doesn’t matter

I don’t “train year round” it’s a winter weather late-fall to early spring i.e 6 months activity

If TR wants to develop these, make them pay to play but to bundle them in an all or nothing makes it a tough value proposition for some users who will never make use of them.


I think this could be nice. I’d be interested in some level of basic access, minus the plans, calendar, analysis etc. Say access to the workout creator and maybe at least some access to the workout library. I think the plans are good, and the calendar but I like doing my own planning and I can get access to a calendar easily enough other places.

I think the problem here is that because a lot of people started before the analytics and the calendar existed they think of them as being “extra” features. But they aren’t. They’re part of TrainerRoad and absolutely part of the core. TrainerRoad is not just a simpler product without them, but in fact a worse product.


But people buy “worse” products all the time. Because they’re cheaper


Moderator hat on again:

Complaints / critical comments about those discussing this topic are not productive.
(head… bang… wall…)

This topic is financial at it’s core and as such, will be very important and subjective to people on a variety of levels. It’s not your place to criticize what someone considers fair price or an appropriate way to spend their money. Make your own choice and leave others to theirs.

Whining about the ongoing discussion does nothing more than imply that people should not share their thoughts and opinions. It’s a terrible thing to imply and counterproductive to the entire point of a discussion forum.

If you are tired of the comments, think everything is repeated, etc… step out by using either of the methods I described above.

Please cease posting that type of comment and keep on topic.


So in other words, the majority neither want or need the advanced features, but will be made pay for their development?

There has to be a case for getting rid of the grandfathering system at this stage. If any big new features come out it would be bordering on ridiculous for them still to be honoured at the original fee. Of course the original members should be rewarded for their loyalty and support, so perhaps an incremental price bump to their membership would be appropriate.

To the argument that it’s only the cost of a coffee per week extra - this is missing the point completely.
It’s putting TR at a price way, way above it’s rivals.
For the average user (which you claim is the majority of the figures don’t add up to use a tiered system), other platforms offer much better value.

To my mind, if the sufferfest implements a structured training program from within the app, which I know must be close as its in the pipeline, TR could suffer massively. I for one would find it hard to ignore.

Understand that I’m saying this from a place of love for the TR system - I want it to succeed.
This really is the first time in years that they’ve done something to make me question them…which worries me.

I’m month-to-month and probably always will be, because I usually don’t train from May or so till October or November, so the annual savings doesn’t really happen for me. I’m a casual rider, and sometimes race (mountain bikes), and since I was in really good shape this December, I signed up to take my third shot at the Maah Daah Hey 100. That race is coming up in 11 days.

I’ve been using Zwift and TrainerRoad together, because I really value the workouts and plans that TR has, but I need the visuals to keep myself from going crazy (and movies/tv just don’t do it for me). And sometimes the TR workouts are such that I’m just trying to get to the next fencepost or sign or tree :joy::sob:

I was just about to pause my subscription for a few months, because realistically, I can’t afford to keep it going as-is. I’ve already dropped my Zwift sub until the fall/winter, and was going to wait till after the race to drop TR. I’m still planning to do that – again, I can’t REALLY afford it at $15/mo, and I definitely can’t afford it at $20/mo, and I normally only use it 4-5 months, so going annual doesn’t make a ton of sense for me.

When I come back in the fall/winter, I’ll probably just use Zwift – I run a weekly mountain bike group ride, and Zwift gives me an option to do that when the weather doesn’t allow us to ride the trails (I’m in MN, but we all have fatbikes, so we go all winter – but the trails aren’t always rideable). TR doesn’t have that (for good reason). But between the social aspects for my group ride and the lower monthly cost, I don’t think I’ll be able to justify using TrainerRoad next year. Which makes me sad.

Thanks for all you’ve done – I’ve used TR off and on for 4 or 5 years I think, and it’s definitely made me stronger. Thanks for the info in the podcast, and for the forums. Hopefully my financials will turn around and I’ll be able to make the cost justifiable in my budget again.

— edit —

I just want to be really clear: I get a ton of value from TR. I just won’t be able to afford it after the price increase, and also can’t afford to keep my sub to stay grandfathered in.

My only concern around this really is that the TR guys have their figures right and are able to continue to develop the platform.

I have no real dog in the fight as I’ve been a continuous member since the beta days on $7 a month and have no intention of leaving any time soon. TR has been great to me is the best platform available to meet my needs and has only improved over the years.

My thoughts really echo those of @mcneese.chad earlier in the thread. It appears the way it was done seems very out of character for the way TR has acted as a company. It has mostly been incredibly open and communicative in the way it has been operated, very different to most of the faceless companies I deal with on a daily basis. That has been part of the appeal of the company and one of the keys reasons I’ve recommended TR to others over the years.

For me, even with the recent price increases (which I don’t have to pay) it would be worth it. I very much get my monies worth. It’s not just me and many of the others commenting here that need to be attracted though. My wife, for example, has been an occasional subscriber over the years just for fitness rather than any great sporting ambition and it’s these people who will likely be put off by the price increases. It will be difficult for us to financially justify my wife using the platform moving forward when there are cheaper platforms that meet those needs.

As long as the figures add up for TR and they have enough subscribers to continue to develop in the direction they want, for me all is good. If however they have misjudged it slightly and potential subscribers go elsewhere and income either decreases or doesn’t continue to rise in line with expectations then realising those ambitions may be more difficult.


I’m relatively new to TR - month 2 and really like it. Currently paying on a monthly basis and had thought about changing to the annual subscription for the saving but it looks like the new pricing model will mean I’ll pay more. Currently $15/mth, or I can opt for the annual package for $190 - I don’t think I’ll bother!

You can contact support and they will give you the annual price based on a $15/month payment.

1 Like

This is a pretty big leap. The calendar and data analysis integration coupled with the training platform itself is why I became an annual subscriber in the first place (and ditched my Training Peaks premium account). I don’t know that you can say “the majority” feels one or another about it, but we could have a poll if someone really wants to dive into that.

up to everyone to make that decision

“why don’t they just make it cheaper?” is a pretty bold suggestion though, i’m sure none of the TR team had thought of that

It would be very interesting to have a poll on tiered access…but the data would be skewed as people on the TR forums tend to be more dedicated than the average user!

We can only assume Nate and the guys have done a very, very detailed analysis on this and have looked at all possible avenues, so I really, really hope for everyone’s sake it works out. It was a very big call.

The sheer amount of discussion on here alone shows what a significant step this is.

That’s not what I said at all.
To just make it cheaper would be silly.

To offer a reduced feature set at a reduced price is a totally different thing.

It is indeed up to everyone to make their own decision. If nothing else changes, my worry is that the casual users TR have enjoyed up until now will vote with their feet and move, which benefits no one on here.

To the argument that it’s only the cost of a coffee per week extra - this is missing the point completely.
It’s putting TR at a price way, way above it’s rivals.
For the average user (which you claim is the majority of the figures don’t add up to use a tiered system), other platforms offer much better value.

Really. So the $1.15 / week increase now put’s it “way above” it’s rivals with now offer “much better” value.

From what I can see, if the extra revenue generated from this increase goes straight back into the business (new features, quicker development) then it has to be good value for the user.

IF TR stays basically the same throughout the rest of 2019 then I will become a little cynical and less loyal.

  • That number is irrelevant on it’s own (at least with respect to comparing other products/services). It is simply the delta from old TR to new TR pricing.
  • If comparison to other offerings is the goal, you need to look at the precise pricing options and features offered of each. Here is the list that Nate provided above for proper app comparison context:
  • Simple review shows that TR is equal to, or more expensive than the other options (varies by payment period/method).
  • Whether that level is appropriate and offers the features/value that matter to each person is a purely personal choice/preference.
1 Like

Sorry, but this isn’t strong argument because it’s been develop them as inextricable core. They could have just as easily developed them in a modular manner. I don’t feel a calendar function is premium feature, but table stakes. Other analytics and support for additional platfroms/activities are. It happens all the time. Strava did this with there Summit packs. Those who want to see the analysis and features pay for Summit, those who don’t use the basic free. The tier model works.

I’m not arguing that they have no value and I am happy to continue to pay my membership as is. Even though I only regularly us it 55-60% of the time, I have an annual subscription that I don’t put on hold or otherwise and I feel that 40% “premium” I pay is worth the value to support the platform or the occasional usage I get in the down-time. But if I had to pay for a bunch of features that have no value add for me, and I suspect there are many in a similar situation although that is conjecture, I would not invest in the annual subscription at the new pricing, because it no longer meets the value proposition for me.

I would like to see, although even if TR had the data they wouldn’t share it, what the breakdown of usage on a feature by feature basis as a justification for bundling a monolithic app vs tiered OR if TR’s target market is the highly motivated and informed enthusiast/competitor that wants all the bells and whistles and they aren’t going after the enthusiast or cycling-active market, then too bad for me and the others like me.

1 Like


TR is now $100 per year dearer than the sufferfest based on GP Lama’s pricing table.
For the average user, this is huge.

Seems like a lot of the serious athletes that want all the extra features are all grandfathered in, so costs for all the new development is being shifted to new signups…which may significantly decrease due to reasons stated above.

I just think the way it’s all being done is terrible, but hey it’s only my opinion. But it’s my opinion as a big TR supported over the years…I’ve been left with a bad taste on this one and I’m obviously not alone.