- Not from anything I’ve seen or heard.
2 Likes
If I recall correctly, Nate asked the community if they wanted updates, even if they were delayed or far off. The overwhelmingly response was yes.
6 Likes
Same.
Yeah but that could be kept to updates like feature X is at development stage 4 of 6, if it fails to meet criteria here it’s going to go back to stage 2. Talk of releases, even in beta, should be avoided until it’s actually released IMO.
Some people will interpret what Nate said as “we’re just picking our marketing name for it then it’s coming out in beta.” But he said there’s testing still happening.
For reference:
4 Likes
Here’s a shortened version if what Nate said [my editorial comments and edits are in square brackets]:
“What I want is [… goes on to describe red light / green light and that it requires WLV2]. [Sudden cut in the video]. I just got message on this, I’m going to see it after this [he doesn’t even know what the status is], and if that goes right, I’m going to have certain people on the forum start using it like tomorrow, like it’s already going to be live to more people, and if that goes well then we’re going to go to early access for people. And there’s so many cases we’re going to have to understand.
[Talks about RLGL benefits]. The design is done and marketing [… tries to remember the marketing name, describes RL/GL]. We’re trying to get it out ASAP but it’s going to be tough with the holidays and stuff [which is exactly why he should have kept quiet about timing IMO].
[More talk of how good RL/GL is …] And then, what the next step is [bad idea to talk about far future stuff right after promising imminent release of long awaited stuff], is we think this might be a way to help subscribe [pretty sure he meant prescribe] volume for like plan builder, like run it through a simulation with RLGL or fatigue monitor to see what is the right amount that you’re not going to get in these holes plus add these other options.
And I’ll guess I’ll spoil this too [keep on digging that hole], we’re adding in the ability on plan builder that you’re going to be able to change a ride to a group ride or solo […]. Once you do that ride, WLV2, we’re not going to show it you yet, there’s still some tweaking, but the back end system uses it to understand that ride, it’s more than just TSS, it’s using all the workout levels to understand that ride and adapt [RLGL and AT].”
That was very confusing and not concise. I’m still not sure whether he means WLV2 is coming soon or not, at least as anything user facing. In my eyes, Nate is the CEO who cried “stay subscribed, the product will be fixed any day now” too many times.
People really want their non-TR rides to count towards PL. And that’s been publicly stated to be in the works for more than 2 years. Get it done and get it out there. I’m tired of hearing excuses or about other things they are doing. If I didn’t have a big discount for staying subbed I would have been long gone.
7 Likes
Thanks for the transcription!
Does TR need to “be fixed” or are we just talking about new features here?
8 Likes
I guess it could work to hold on to current subscribers. Keep saying it’s coming soon so people don’t leave. But it’s not great for people on the fence or thinking about subscribing. “This new feature is coming soon, so you should subscribe.” No, I’ll just wait until it comes out. And two years later we’re still waiting.
I think he truly gets excited a can’t help himself from talking about it. But unfortunately that just gets people interested in the update and get impatient.
Let’s review the TR support article giving the overview on Progression Levels. It gives this definition:
Progression Levels are a dynamic, real-time representation of your fitness and ability to express your FTP across each training zone. They are measured on a scale from 1-10 to track your progress.
As you complete rides, Adaptive Training analyzes and adjusts these levels based on the relative difficulty of your workouts in each zone, as well as how successful you were in completing them.
Progression Levels can help you select workouts that are appropriate for your current capabilities. They also guide Adaptive Training to make more specific plan adjustments based on your individual performance.
Bolding is mine. They emphasize that it measures your actual fitness, capabilities and performance on rides, not just workouts. How’s it supposed to do that accurately if you don’t do the vast majority of your riding strictly on TR?
Yes, it’s discussed to death in the forums and probably mentioned in other support pages, but not being mentioned on the PL page tells you it was always envisioned to support outdoor rides. And clearly that’s what people want. What good is only knowing your TR fitness but not your actual fitness, other than bragging?
1 Like
To know what TR workout you should do. That has been the primarily goal of PLs.
TR has primarily been an indoor training tool. And you can import TR workouts to your head unit and do them outdoors.
We all eagerly waiting WLV2 but I do think you’re exaggerating when you say TR is broken without it.
12 Likes
I do tend to disagree with this, but totally understand where you’re coming from. TR is a training tool, and if you only consider TR workouts, it’s perfect. But from my perspective, I just find it rather annoying that it never captured the full picture of fitness.
I always did the low volume plans, to allow room for other unstructured rides that gave me joy. I nearly always nailed my workouts, and was very consistent. So my levels accurately reflected my fitness, so long as it was only including TR workouts.
Then I’d get an opportunity to do that 7 hour adventure ride, and it’s just kind of depressing to look at my “endurance” fitness level of 1.0, knowing it was fake news.
I think workout levels is a great idea. When adaptive training was announced, I immediately signed back up for TR again. But workout levels are just plain inaccurate as long as they’re only capturing TR workouts. You can’t debate that.
Years of waiting for classification of outdoor activity and I grew frustrated and eventually led me to stop my subscription.
2 Likes
I don’t understand the obsession/fixation with endurance PLs. Just go do Z2 for as long as you have time for. Even for tempo they are not important. They start to make a difference for workout at SS and above.
I did Unbound gravel with an endurance PL of something like 2 or 3. Doesn’t matter.
I’m looking forward to WL2 coming out but to say TR is broken without it is a a massive overstatement IMO.
21 Likes
You’re admitting that they’re incorrect for Z2, but then saying that saying they’re incorrect for Z2 is an overstatement.
3 Likes
I think the issue is that TR tried to sell the entire market and themselves that training for cycling is best on an indoor trainer and built their ecosystem around that. And there is a certain part of the market that will buy into that and/or just wants to ride their bike inside.
But come on, it is cycling. The fun is the speed, riding with friends, seeing the scenery. So I think they limited themselves. Their ecosystem just doesn’t work as intended for people who ride outside. Everyone knows this. The outdoor workouts seem like a half hack/bodge to overcome this, but yes, to have an all encompassing ecosystem that properly addresses the way many people want to train (outside rides, unstructured) ((don’t get me started on the assumption that what they call “unstructured” isn’t training)) they need to build a training ecosystem that takes these rides into your fitness profile or whatever they call it.
7 Likes
No I’m saying that they are incorrect for endurance and that them being incorrect doesn’t matter. And I’m saying the PL/s not being accuract for endurance doesn’t mean TR is broken.
I think it is important for SS and above for them to be accurate to get the appropriate workout. But for endurance just ride as long as you can at a Z2 type pace (talk test, HR, or power).
2 Likes
It works if you use only as TR intended - follow their plans exclusively. It doesn’t work if you don’t want to do that. Just count the number of threads on this forum that ask a question about if AI took their outdoor ride or zwift race into account. There is at least 1 per day.
PL is part of their secret sauce that they are selling. If you believe in it, it should work better.
You seem to be saying your understand your training and take matters into your own hands and make decisions based on your experience and understanding of fitness. That is great. You make it work for you. But that is not the experience that TR is selling.
2 Likes
Yes 100%, well said.
To be clear, I agree. I don’t think it matters at the end of the day. I just find it annoying and frustrating. Enough to drive me away. I suspect other, very analytically driven folks like me, tend to agree that this inaccuracy is extremely frustrating. Seeing those workout levels move after nailing a workout is gratifying. Not seeing any change after an epic ride is frustrating.
EDIT:
I take it back. It really does matter (as others posted below). Don’t fixate on my example of “Endurance” PL … it was just an example. I’ll use a different example: Say you went for a segment PR that required you doing 90 minutes of sweet spot. If this unscheduled ride was done during your SSB1 plan… You’re not going to get a level adjustment for that (unless you use the ‘find a similar workout’ to associate hack). Then that lack of adjustment will have the knock-on effect of AT not giving you good workouts down the road based on your real SST PL.
I think the issue is a little of everything here being discussed rather than one single thing. TR started as an indoor only training platform. But for most people, we want to ride outdoors. And we race outdoors. It’s fine for winter but I think TR realized pretty quickly that they needed to cover outdoor rides. So they pushed workouts to head units to do outside. Cool. But then their AI came out with PLs, where you could get workout analysis and suggested workouts. But again, people want to ride and train outdoors. I think if TR wants to really succeed they need to address outdoor training. It’s why even when I used TR I gave it up during the summer. They’re missing a big chunk of the training calendar.
I think part of the issue is the all or nothing scoring. It’s more of a work around for outdoor rides than actually having them analyzed. So you can have one person who is wrongly (not intentionally) giving themself passes when they shouldn’t. Or somebody else being stricter and failing themselves when they actually complete the workout. Or my problem was going out with the plan of doing say 60 minutes of SweetSpot. Maybe I do more because I feel good. Now I have to search for a workout that matches what I actually did or create one in workout builder. It’s clunky and unnecessary.
The other issue is the advertisement of PL 2.0 for literally over two years. People are getting tired of waiting. It’s just so frustrating to hear month after month that one, how awesome it will be, but two, that it’s still not ready. Hearing, “we’re so close to release” for years is not a great look.
10 Likes
Whenever someone writes “Everybody knows this.”, you should be cautious. Riding with friends, seeing the scenery and enjoying speed is part of cycling, but usually not training.
While you can tell that TR has been designed as an indoor trainer platform first, outdoor workouts do work. Most limitations to outdoor training are particular to outdoor training and not specific to TrainerRoad. (I did train outdoors before switching to TR. I have also briefly coached an athlete who only did outdoor workouts while we worked together.) You have to be more flexible with your power targets as simple things like wind interacting with a row of trees or buildings can cause your power to fluctuate wildly. For safety reasons it is unwise to stick to precise power targets. Workouts get simpler and more flexible as you have to deal with traffic, traffic lights and road crossings, etc. Or the terrain could be undulating. In my experience, outdoor workouts are much harder to pull off, though, because e. g. you need suitable stretches of road for various workouts, which not everybody has access to. Where I live now, I cannot do longer steady-state workouts safely. The city I used to live in, it was possible, but it took 30–60 minutes to get there. One way. Of course, maybe you live in a region where you have plenty of choices of good, safe roads for even things like 30-30s or VO2max workouts. The length of breaks was often dictated by geography, too, rather than e. g. intentionally shortening them as part of your progression. (It took me the same time to descend my VO2max hills.) When I was coaching, I also felt that more generic prescriptions were more successful (with that particular athlete) than prescribing workouts in detail.
Translating that back to TR’s Progression Levels: you have less levers to pull when making your workouts progressively easier.
Moreover, I understand “unstructured rides” very differently from you: they can be part of training. But you are not necessarily training your endurance, VO2max or whatnot. You could train to ride in a pack or work on your bike handling skills. Or people ride for fun once a week, that’s cool, too. But if you want to quantify the effect on you power profile, I think TR’s approach is sensible (even if it is not publicly available yet). Things like descending skills are not captured by that.
5 Likes