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

This has nothing to do with development. What it has everything to do with is mission statement of the company and its product goals. They offer the calendar and analytics to make you faster, not because they’re extra things that they thought would be nice.

This is a perfect example, analysis has nothing to do with Strava’s main mission statement. Strava exists to be social media for athletes. Its main goal is just to be a place to post rides and comment on others. It makes tons of sense to break off analysis and charge separately for it because it is completely separate to the standard use of the platform and just there because it was a way to charge people more money.

You are correct that it would be skewed not only because folks here are above average users, but also because most, but not all, are grandfathered in at a lower rate. As much as it has been said that will continue, things can change.

To all those ‘Grandfathered in’ who think the price increase is trivial, let your subscription lapse for a single day the next time it’s due and sign up again at the new price. It’s a great way of not only putting your money where your mouth is, but also helping to support the company.



I like most people was surprised by the lack of communication prior to the price change but I understand the logic from a business point of view.

In my opinion if this was handled with open communication like it always has people on the forum probably would take it at face value.

1 Like

That’s exactly what I said. What is the target market they are aiming for. Cadillacs or Corollas. Both get you places, but in vastly different environments.

There is a big difference between “can’t” and “won’t”. You keep saying that they “can’t” because they are core features. I use the plans the plans period. I am faster than I was before TR so they aren’t “100% necessary” to the core mission of making one faster. They are value-add to those who want to go the extra distance to get that much more faster. What’s the breakdown of faster to race-faster?

There is no technical reason why the app cannot be structured and offered in a tiered structure. TR “won’t” develop and offer it this way. I am providing feedback as to why I believe it would be beneficial to do so.

1 Like

No, I didn’t say that. I said that it doesn’t make any good business sense to do it and that they shouldn’t.

I think this pretty much says it all. I’ll just stop here In the interest of keeping this from becoming a silly me vs you argument and keeping @mcneese.chad from hammering us both :slight_smile:

1 Like

Agree to disagree is a fine conclusion here (and many other places :stuck_out_tongue: )

  • Seriously though, I do appreciate the consideration and thought from you and others.
  • The overall level of respect shown on this forum is something I value greatly, and I feel it makes this one of the better places on the web.
  • I try to help refocus and keep that perspective (when I see it drifting towards undesired directions), with hopes that it doesn’t squash the valuable discussion, and leads to new understanding for myself and others.

Most of what TR has planned is defensive. When all is said and done, if TR executes, you’ll just be getting stuff you could of had today somewhere else.

TR is never going to do data logging and basic data analysis better than the folks who actually invented (or popularized) all the key metrics (TP). At best, TR might eventually match TP but that is not going to attract more users to TR. TP is now $70 a year cheaper than TR so if data logging and analysis is all you’re after, even future perfected TR is never going to be your choice. TR might get some users who would already be on or drawn to TR to drop TP but that puts no money in TR’s pocket so investing just to make that happen does not seem like a great use of resources.

Another issue for TR is they have now priced in the advanced features before they are actually available. A new user shopping for a training package can now get TrainingPeaks Premium AND buy a structured cycling or triathlon plan within the TP app from a high end coaching firm for less than the new annual cost of TR. That is rather stunning when you think about it.


The argument about tiered pricing is not silly - but it remains an overall business strategic decision. Many software offerings (Evernote, Dropbox, iCloud, …) have such pricing, often with a free “basic” offer, and “better” steps at various price points. There a few of those in training platforms (Training Peaks, Strava, Tacx I think), but it’s not the norm. There are two different strategies under this practice: either lure in future paying users with a “free basic but not quite good enough” offer to give a taste of the product and hope to convert into the pay-for use mode (most cloud storage players do this), or serve two different segments (Strava comes to mind). Spotify makes money from you in the free-service mode (selling you to advertisers), and also makes money from you in the for-a-fee service mode. They don’t care if you stay in the first tier.

1 Like

I’d be all for tiered pricing if it was tiered up rather then down.

For me current TR is starting to lose its value at the new price (but I’m grandfathered and not going anywhere). But I’d be willing to consider paying more for some level of personalization in the coaching.

I kept supporting TR even when lapsing in my training because I was still getting value from listening to the podcast and wanted to support Nate, Chad, and Jonathan in their efforts. Even $20/mon would be worth it just for the podcast - that’s what, $2.50/hr of content? Then you add in everything else - the forum, the application, etc. - and knowing you’re supporting a company that supports cycling and appears from the outside to be running a solid business that is good to its employees? Yeah, I’m in.


Everything is relative, right?

I don’t think a freemium model works in such a narrow market - not enough advertising money available (“this 3-minute interval is brought to you by…”). But a tiered for-a-fee model could work - assuming that’s what the company wants to do. It’s a complexity vs cost vs revenue growth vs profitability balancing act.

I’ve been skimming so if someone already mentioned this, sorry ‘bout that.

I think that the gap between what TR charges vs. what their competitors charge will come down in the near future because the competitors will also raise their prices. Something to consider when doing your comparisons.


I don’t see it much different than what Hansons Marathon method does. I bought the book for the plans and logic but if you want something outside of the book they will sell you different variations of the plans for a nominal fee. I have many friends that are runners that have done this.

I can see a market (maybe small but with little effort on TR part) for that with TR by taking the plans and making them a little more customized for the person. Most people just dont want to mess with making their own plan.

1 Like

Might as well throw my $0.02 in too since everyone else is. I’ve been using TR since near the beginning and I have what I call “great grandfathered” pricing :joy: which as a Canadian I really like since it helps soften the blow of the crappy exchange rate - - I had also gone with the annual subscription so I wasn’t getting hit with exchange/credit card foriegn transaction fees each month. Much like the Aussie guy(s) that posted, the new pricing is a pretty substantial hit for non-US residents and very difficult to recommend to people given the competition in the sector - - I’m also of the opinion that comparing the cost to coaching isn’t really a valid comparison, the other indoor cycling subscription services that are out there is what people will be looking at when they get a new trainer and enter the world of indoor training. To most just doing a casual overview TR appears “boring” and when they see the price tag it will likely end up with a “hard pass”, but we’ll have to see what happens there.

For me as a long time user, I pretty much just stick to the plans and the workouts. I enjoy the calendar, but could do without it (especially in its fairly clunky form, i.e. no sorting of order of workouts, colors for workout types, only the top/highest TSS workout showing an icon, etc) and I’m not even sure what “analytics” are of any value, especially just looking at one workout–just having a TSS calendar (that can’t be tweaked as much as one would hope) as the only overarching analysis of training over a range is really basic stuff. The outdoor rides integration is cool for those that need it, but also something that doesn’t do anything for me. But again, it’s a tough sell to recommend against the competition at almost $30/month CDN (Zwift is $18.99 CDN for comparison, charged in CDN).

Hopefully things workout and this change provides the income to push forward faster as intended though, as maybe the new features on the roadmap will be of more interest to me and others.


That, for me, is the biggest issue with this whole strategy. There have been a lot of promises and not much delivery: Too much ‘vision’ shared but when push comes to shove not much has seen the light of day.

“It’s on the road map” is a phase too often used on this forum.

Customer loyalty is something that is hard won, but can disappear quickly.

Personally, I’m in the situation now where, to be honest, I haven’t used Trainerroad much since Christmas. I don’t follow a plan and have created a lot of my own workouts. With some of the free tools out there I don’t even need the software to train and as far as post ride analysis goes, I think TR is a weak offering.

I don’t want to evangelize leaving TR. That’s a personal decision that should be made by individuals.

Having said that I’ve kept my subscription on a monthly basis as a way to support the company in what they’re trying to do. Call it good will for all of the ‘free’ content they produce.



I was about to post this very same thing. I think, given all of the movement in this area of the market in the last few months, we’ll see price rises everywhere as we approach autumn in the Northern Hemisphere.


For some, I’d guess, grandfathering keeps user subscription dollars flowing to TR year-round rather than some users suspending their accounts during the outside training/racing months.

1 Like

Yes they can. (I’m happy to provide a training plan via TP, for a fee!) That said, what TP doesn’t do is integrate that plan onto an app to control your smart trainer, which is THE core function of TR. Having been a TP premium user for more than a decade as an athlete, a coached athlete, and a coach, the functionality provided by TrainerRoad is more than enough for most athletes. The PMC is an obvious missing piece, but quite frankly the usefulness and validity of the PMC becomes less and less as your season progresses anyway.

I agree there are more analytics in Training Peaks, but I also agree with Nate’s assessment that most of those analytics aren’t particularly useful in terms of getting faster. There are a few glaring holes in my opinion in terms of data that I track during base/build phases.

Again, I point out that TR’s calendar and analytics were enough for me to drop my TP premium subscription this year as I solely focused on cycling. When/if I return to multisport and coaching, I will again use Training Peaks, and am attending TPU this fall to be “fully indoctrinated” as a TP coach.

1 Like