Association may be only a minor aspect to this. Actually reading the workout and comparing to the planned one could be more tricky with power variability outside, not to mention potential impact from coasting, stops, and other interruptions that happen outside vs with inside workouts.
I suspect that is why they seem to be putting all the eggs in the “analyze any workout to extract the PL values” vs the A/B comparison of planned vs executed workouts, for outside stuff at least.
Quite often in software, the most common reason is “we kicked the can down the road in order to put more focus on higher priority items.” What I can tell you is that after joining the beta in early June, my Jan/Feb manually associated (TrainingPeaks) custom outside workouts recorded on Garmin briefly had progression levels. So a handful or two weeks ago, it all looked reasonable and close to working, at least when looking back at my Jan/Feb outside custom workouts.
Even now it appears to be working behind the scenes. I did some over/under intervals outside today:
and it jumped over 90 at 11am, plus there was smoke in the air from a grass fire or the Dixie complex, or some other forest fire. And I’m going to do a slow roll on the 90 minute group ride tonight when its forecast to be 100F. So two workouts in the heat today.
My response to all that? I did the post-interval zone2 work by HR (not power). And received the ‘struggle’ survey instead of the easy/mod/hard/very/all-out survey. It sure seems to be watching. Either that or it didn’t like all the stops for traffic lights, or in the 3rd set getting stuck behind farm equipment and having to slow roll the last under 
If @hvvelo doesn’t renew his subscription could I have his AT access 
.
Considering @Nate_Pearson’s business acumen I very much doubt he would alienate the wahoo market share from the past SUF relationship.
I have the new bolt and it doesn’t make you faster but I also use Suunto and they don’t play ball with anyone!
My sub lapsed in June as I do almost all of my riding outdoors in the summer (UK). Personally as a Wahoo user I’ll probably hold off renewing until I this gets sorted.
The more general solution basically solves all the problems with AT not classifying unstructured work etc etc as well - so much more useful. Seems like a pretty clear reason…
From what Nate said they have it testing internally at the moment.
And it’s much more widely applicable! Being able to take any power trace and classify it is much more powerful isn’t it.
Can’t help you there as I’m not on the beta and I’m sure I’m on the permanently banned beta list for having the audacity to interrupt the TR love-fest to observe aspects of the AT project that have been a total dumpster fire and complete let down to a big portion of their subscriber base. Fine by me, because it’s totally useless on Wahoo, so no need to be on the beta.
And per the podcast, sounds like that will continue to be the case even when it’s officially released for some indeterminate time - and I’ll take credit for this thread finally at least putting all this out in the open after months of vague BS answers. So at least we got that.
This entire issue with passing workout information had to be well known WAY before kicking off the beta and those expectations could have been set in February that Wahoo support for structured outdoor workouts was simply not going to happen for the entire summer season.
I suspect a lot of subscribers were strung along thinking that was going to happen well before the bigger and admittedly more challenging problem of classifying any random ride and that it would be a great reason to stick around to see it release sometime this outdoor season. This is why many of us are not happy.
It’s great that something is being tested - but it’s already acknowledged to have ongoing problems and we know that AT was in development for over a year before the beta even started - so nobody should be expecting this to work for anything other than indoors or Garmin this year given the recent development track record here.
This is where reasonable people can agree to disagree.
Back from a 5 day vacation off the bike, glad to see some members (the most vocal of whom are not even using the beta and have NO firsthand experience with it) still yelling at clouds thinking that demeaning TR and it’s users and making demands/threats to not renew will somehow make the staff rush to take care of their concerns about an UNFINISHED product. Kinda surprised some haven’t asked to speak to a manager.
TR hasn’t raised prices, so why are people mad that other members are helping with the teething pains of a software development that these complainers will eventually benefit from? Use TR as before, nothing has changed for the worse for people outside of beta, I don’t get the whining at all
While I agree threatening to quit and some of the other comments I have read on this board or not helpful, I do feel like TR staff built AT up to something that it was not (at least not yet). You can say it’s a private beta, but when TrainerRoad plasters AT all over TR’s social media and their website and constantly make comments on the podcast about how great AT is, people are going to have certain expectations. In some ways, I feel like on the initial release podcast they made a lot of claims about AT that were a pipe dream and years of development away from release.
I am in the beta and have seen how adaptions and progressions work. Am I excited to see where AT goes in the future, YES! Do I feel like TR staff initial built AT up to something that it was not at that moment, yes. Do I wish they would prioritize triathlon related plans and features, YES (sorry had to add that last one 
)!
I hope these forums remain a great place to interact and have conversations with people about all kinds of topics related to endurance sports. I also have to give TR props for their willingness to be on these forums all the time and interact and give answers as best they can. Thanks @IvyAudrain (and others), we appreciate it!
Thank you for the feedback and props. We will definitely keep working to make the forum a great space for constructive debate and dialogue. Learning from other athletes is tite!
I’m certainly not making anyone drink Kool Aid out of a fire hose and I do think the whole announcement was a bit premature and a bit reactionary to a certain critique video, but this program is a tall task to put together and we are a part of making it come to life. I can see people in the beta being frustrated by beta limitations, but I can’t see why people who aren’t in the beta to begin with are raising the biggest stink about it when nothing has really changed for them for the worse, in fact they got a better version of TrainNow as a result.
Those outdoor Wahoo free rides never impacted the training plans in any way to begin with so what’s the big deal? Put these people in the beta and they will complain that it doesn’t work 100%. Don’t put them in the beta and they will complain that they are being excluded. I’m sure the staff knows they can’t please everyone and hope they keep their focus on moving forward rather than appeasing and entertaining those who will always find SOMETHING to complain about
This is pretty much where I’m at, and I say that as a disinterested third party. I don’t have any plans to use AT, so there is no real emotional investment on my part. I do think TR has really erred in how they have released and presented this. It’s basically hyped to the moon and doesn’t work for a lot of folks and is not going to in what would be a reasonable time frame after announcement.
I have a different perspective. TR is a software product, and the schedule is not too dissimilar to that of Apple, Google and Microsoft when they release new versions of their operating systems: you have an announcement (which includes a dollop of marketing, yes). Then you have a closed beta and/or public beta phase next that lasts a few months. And then you have the public release. Sometimes features that have been announced are pushed back to later point releases or postponed till the next year (scoring of unstructured and Wahoo workouts comes to mind).
By and large TR follows this model, no doubt because of @Nate_Pearson’s background. Could they have waited another week so that they could have announced that the first wave of users will be admitted to the beta the next week? Sure. But I don’t think the gap between announcement and admitting the first wave of users to the beta was egregious.
Likewise, a good share of the criticism of the AT beta mimics that of first-time beta testers who use production quality standards as their yard stick. That’s quite normal when you deal with people installing beta versions of iOS/Android on their everyday carry phones and get upset when they lose all of their data or it is unusable.
The point where I think you do have a point concerns the “marketing” angle. I personally found it very helpful to hear the bigger vision that TR has, and I think they have a very sensible goal and importantly, they have the complaints and criticisms of many users (including some on this forum) on the radar.
But I do get that some may hear this and their expectation is that the initial release of AT will sport all the features that will take the next 5-10 years to see the light of day. Setting the right expectations is also an important aspect of marketing, and here, I can agree that some may view this as TR overpromising what AT can deliver.
Ya but the pace of new features over the last couple of years… we can agree to disagree but you analogy falls down imho. So many minor features kicked down the road…. like outside workout targets being displayed. My opinion, you might disagree.
What do you mean? I think you want to say that TR was slow to release new features to TR in the last few years, but I don’t want to put words into your mouth.
In my experience with the software industry, that’s exactly what happens there, too: smaller bugs are almost never fixed, because they never float to the top. Software companies effectively prioritize new features and getting them ready to ship over polish.
You can see this with TR. My biggest criticism of TR is its apps and web interface: it’s a mess. Some things I can only do online or perhaps on a desktop app (e. g. annotating a workout or checking whether I have hit my power targets). It is not clear which features are supported where. The iPad version seems to be an afterthought, etc. I can go on, believe me. But I think your argument that minor features are continuously being kicked down the road is exactly consistent with TR working like other software companies.
PS I should add that I am making this analogy, because it precisely shows the weaknesses of this approach: fixes to smaller bugs and lesser used features are put on the back burner, you have rewrites that don’t seem to solve anything. You have Electron/false faith that cross-platform APIs make your life simpler.
For almost thirty years I’ve developed and sold software for semiconductor and software engineers. And early adopter of a lot of software including ML. So that’s my perspective, as both insider and consumer. And I get dropped every week by NorCal podiumers that rarely do inside training. All of which I’ve communicated to TR mgmt. YMMV.
Sorry, but I don’t get your point.
Just giving you my experience
post_deleted
