4 Likes
It’s funny. I prefer the ramp test. It feels more “real”. I have no idea which is more accurate, but when AI tells me I have 2 more watts, it feels like less of an achievement than when the ramp test does.
4 Likes
See Nate’s original post in this thread:
4 Likes
It’s astounding to me how many people will throw a fit over a $2 a month increase. Seriously…in an industry where a new bike costs thousands, a new kit, shoes, helmets, etc. all cost hundreds, race registrations are rising every year, etc…
Like…what? It’s 2 dollars people. $24 a year. Buy one less pair of riding socks and call it good 
6 Likes
Exactly. I just spent $400 on suspension service, a new chain, dropper lever, etc. TR is cheap by comparison.
About 10 years ago, in my spare time (pre-kids) I made an iOS app to track mileage and time on your bike and components. Not including time, I invested about $1000 of my own money, which includes Apple’s annual $100 developer fee and other software/graphics. When I told people (in person) that I was asking for $1, instead of being free, they looked at me like I had just kicked them in the teeth. Yet basic coffee at Starbucks costs about $4 now… 
5 Likes
I learned a long time ago not to assume we know what is going on in anyone else’s life…emotionally, psychologically and even financially.
If some say they can’t afford it, or aren’t willing to pay it, I accept them at their word. What constitutes “value” is different for each one of us.
15 Likes
Very true.
I haven’t really seen a lot of people throwing a fit either.
Send me 2$ via paypal for the next year please
3 Likes
I understand what you’re saying and respect that. My post is directed more at the cycling industry in general. Everything has skyrocketed. A $2 change to a monthly subscription isn’t the hill I’m dying on.
2 Likes
Yes, we will support it. We’re waiting for them to get their side done.
5 Likes
4 Likes
I think it’s how people frame it. When I hear people that are critical of the price increase it’s usually done in percentages.
Different ways to frame $189 → $209.99/year
- 11% increase
- $21 more per year
- $1.75 more per month
- 1x gel per month
- 4x Maurten 160 gels per year (those things are expensive
)
This is a good example. The price increase of the S-Works Tarmac ($3000) is equivalent to 14 years of a TrainerRoad membership at $209.99!
I’d also bet money that 3 months of training on TR will make you way faster than upgrading from an SL6 to SL8.
8 Likes
People upset about giving up legacy pricing need to let it go. That only exists because of an unusual promise made years ago and an effort to honour that promise. If (like me) you gave it up last year and went to full price well then you benefitted from underpaying for a fantastic product for however long you had legacy pricing. I’m guessing the remaining number on legacy is very small by now.
Now, the price is what it is and either it’s ok or it isn’t, everyone is price sensitive to a varying degree, me included.
I won’t renew when my annual sub is up as I don’t make use of the features. I just want a workout player and I can have that for free with the Wahoo app and a piece of paper.
TLDR fantastic company, great communication and openness in this forum but with only one tier, I’m out for the time being.
8 Likes
Out of curiousity, I went back and looked at Ray’s post and what Zwift had to say about the API integration:
Functionally, this new API will behave much like existing third-party connections on Zwift. Once the API Connection is set up and approved, workouts built outside of Zwift will pull directly into the Zwift platform and show in the Custom Workouts folder. The training API will launch later this spring with a few launch partners. Other providers will be able to sign up for this open-API later in the summer.
based on the emphasized text, I don’t see how there is any option for a middle ground pricing structure. Zwift is basically just expanding their current program of letting you import workouts into their world. There won’t be a library of TR workouts available in Zwift…you’ll just import whatever is on your TR calendar.
They are just making it easier to do what so many of us have been doing for years…
2 Likes
I’m sorry @Nate_Pearson but this comment is out of touch and makes me question who’s the target market for Tranerroad because that’s definitely not the case for me or many people I know that subscribe. I know you’re partly joking but you should know better.
I’m not currently a subscriber, which is why I didn’t comment before. However, I’ve been a subscriber in the recent past and even kept my subscription active for a long time when I was not using the app. I did it because I wanted to support a company I like and because I benefit from TR resources (podcast, blog posts, this forum, etc).
However, my financial situation changed and I no longer can afford the subscription. I’ve struggled to keep cycling because it’s difficult to afford the maintenance costs (repairs, replacing parts, events are out of the question, etc).
I also know many people in a similar situation. Some make a lot of sacrifices to keep the subscription, especially in developing countries. Even if they’re not the bulk of your subscribers, they shouldn’t be ignored.
I think the price increase is fair. However, reading these kind of comments from the CEO, makes me question if I really want to make a financial effort to support a company that is basically mocking the financial struggles of its clients or it’s so out of touch that cannot understand why people have a hard time paying more for a cycling app.
7 Likes
Oh yes, the s-works example was extreme if that’s what you’re referring too. Someone used it above so that’s why I used it. I do think the one gel per month is a fair comparison.
I’m sorry to hear that your financial situation has changed and you can’t afford a subscription.
I totally understand that cycling is a luxury and at the top of maslow’s hierarchy of needs. If things get tight, reducing spend on cycling makes sense. We saw it during covid too.
I don’t agree that I’m mocking anyone. I was making a comment on framing price changes as the framing matters.
I do think it’s appropriate for me as CEO to challenge certain narratives on our forum that put TrainerRoad in a bad light.
With your narrative context matters. If we’re talking about developing countries, then yes, $2/month more is a LOT. The median income in India is $330/month! I would argue that power based cycling based training is too expensive for the majority of people in developing countries.
If someone has a financial situation change such as losing their job, then I totally understand why you’d want to cut costs.
My point above is that notwithstanding someone losing their job or living in a developing country, $2/month isn’t a large expense for the market we’re serving.
If I add that framing to your narrative, then it changes it a bit.
I don’t want to support a ceo who’s so out of touch that cannot understand why people have a hard time paying $2 more a month for a cycling app.
9 Likes
People (including me) tend to get hung up on recurring subscription charges (TR) more than one-time charges (fancy new bike). Companies and stockholders love recurring revenue and it makes sense in many cases, but it can be emotionally uncomfortable for some. I’m paying a subscription fee to use it all the time, but how much am I using it? It’s the fitness club dynamic - nobody feels good about paying for something that they aren’t getting the full value from (even when it’s their choice not to use it). If there are 100 features in the software and someone is only using 15 of them, they feel like they are overpaying. It’s kind of a dumb way to look at it, we should be able to just assess whether we are getting the value from what we are using. But we humans are pretty dumb emotional creatures most of the time.
I love my oura ring and I bought it when there wasn’t an ongoing subscription fee. I probably would have upgraded to a new ring long ago, but they now charge like $5/mth to get data/analytics from the ring. I probably get $5 of value out of it every month, but my emotional side just says increase the price of the ring by $100 and nix the ongoing subscription fee. Oura can use that money to support it going forward (it’s not hard for the company to project average service life and account for it, but the investors want to value the company on revenue that recurs forever).
I just don’t like having too many subscriptions to manage, it’s too easy to lose track of them and all of a sudden you realize you’ve been paying for something for the last 5 years and you haven’t even used it.
8 Likes
Yah, good point. Subscription fatigue is real.
I’m totally biased here, but I look at TR for value of watts per dollar. Or would I pay X amount to be Y faster. The amount of features I use doesn’t matter to me if the outcome of being faster happens.
Or as I get older, it’s more about spending my training time efficiently. Is it worth X dollars to save Y amount of training time to have the same outcome.
1 Like
I’m Grandfathered in at 99, bring the old team back for the podcast and beers with Chad and I’ll revert to full price)).
Really miss the old days.
5 Likes
And divert to a Chad thread in 3…2….Chad