well, i know how much it costs to build, maintain, and operate systems, so i’m not going to freeload.
i’d rather Nate work it out with the Friels for a PMC chart (which is the gold standard performance management tool), and include that in my subscription.
You’re right, i SHOULD believe in the value of Intervals.icu, but it’s waaay more than i need. 99% of my visits are to check the PMC on the Fitness tab because my stupid brain can’t tell if the body is tired today without a number.
I’m a long term TR user on legacy pricing. I do believe TR is the best and most reliable training platform available, however, I’m not a serious cyclist, don’t race, don’t follow plans. I use TrainNow 2-3 times a week to maintain general cycling fitness. For me, based in Australia and considering exchange rates, I cannot justify paying more than I currently pay.
I see this used as a reason all the time, but what the software is already paid for. Salaries to develop said features are paid for.
Also my .2c. Still waiting on simple features that TrainingPeaks has had in the bag for my entire career of training.
TR needs to pay for support staff, servers, administration, etc. even if they stopped adding any features.
You are on legacy pricing……your price remains the same.
I totally get it, and you are right. I have used workout matching with outdoor rides only for endurance rides. I am sure TR could have released whatever they arrived at as v1.0 and the thing they are working on now as v2.0. But whatever they have shelved hasn’t passed the bar, and I’m happy when companies err on the side of getting it right. Even if it frustrated customers (= us).
Yes!
RL/GL works great for me. I thought this would be more difficult to implement than WLv2, but apparently not. The idea to first get out something that works very in a narrower set of circumstances and then expand it is smart.
I hope sleep data is next. HRV could also be interesting, but compared to sleep it is a rounding error in terms of significance.
Happily pay the price increase. There’s no system better than TR. Tremendous value even with a price increase!
I understand the need for the increase, you’re running a business and financials need to work.
For me though, it will probably drive me away, at least from the yearly plan. My income hasn’t caught up with inflation either. I’ll try other training tools, or stick with TR during the indoor-only months.
I might be pursued to stay depending on new features to be added until my renewal is due. I’ve been waiting for workout levels V2 for a while now.
if, (finally), you allow to export the workouts, from TR workout generator, I will give it a thought, otherwise, (as was already in my thoughts), I will return, for the next season, to XERT. You asked and I gave my modest opinion. In any case you are doing and I’m sure you will do a good job, there is no doubt about that. All the best. C.
that would be a game changer
Didn’t want to post as don’t want to come across as a TR basher, but feel need to make my case
Over the last 15(???) years, I’ve used TR solidly for seasons. but in recent years I’ve been drifting away, over the last year I’ve had great success doing the following
So this training has been going well (highest ever FTP at the age of 54) but contradicts TR plans and thinking, over the last month has gone a bit off the rails (or so it felt, but FTP doesn’t agree) so I’ve decided that I would use TR progression levels to validate my workouts and training, and this has been a great help
So for the above Training, the lack of WLV2 is a big “fail”, I’m using the WLV1 to score my workouts (I am aware of the trouble with this) and I’m not using the plans
So happy to use TR for what I am already using it for, but it’s already to expensive to leave on the “it’s only a cup of coffee” and I will probably use it about once every 6 months
I think somebody else ^^^^^ said that for experianced users,it’s lost it’s appeal, and for the above reasons I thinkj this is the case for me, the price increase just solidifies my thinking, although TR is a great product, I don’t think it has enough features that match the way that training is working for me, to justify the current price
Anyway, just trying to give feedback on TR pricing, but also I feel the workout player is a bit dated (PC version)
Yeah no shit. But those features we’re already built with current staff and revenue
The annual rate stepping over the $200 marker means I would not subscribe for a year. I would always take outdoors over indoors so just wouldn’t get the value for money with no adaptions for outside riding.
Can I afford $200? Yes definitely but in comparison to competitors I feel its not really justified. I am currently on a 45 euro annual join subscription and at that price point I feel like it is incredible value and more suited to a volume / outdoors type of rider like myself.
I will definitely use TR during the winter for maybe 2 / 3 months as I still think it is far and away the best product for indoor training and sometimes miss the blue bars 
. Also the support staff are fantastic with queries and advice.
I’m a little flummoxed by another proposed price increase so close to the previous one. I let my legacy pricing go, assuming apparently poorly, that it would be a while until we saw another price hike. $2/mo isn’t a deal breaker or anything. Inflation has hit everything (except my salary 
). Was it unrealistic planning/forecasting that led to need for another price hikes so soon?
But I’m skeptical of the apparent argument that “new features have been delivered since last time justifying an increase”. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I always thought the whole point of a subscription software model is to fund not only the operational resources my direct usage causes, but also to fund new features. At least in 2023 part of the argument was to specifically to grow the feature-development part of the company. Ie, to deliver planned features faster (or focus on more in parallel, I guess). I could get behind that.
So, on a whim I pulled up the 2023 price increase justification feature matrix and merged it with the new one (comparing 2024 with a somewhat arbitrary 2019). So in the last 1.5 years we have: RLGL, run sync/analysis, and new plans (masters, regular, and triathlon).
The tri plan and run stuff is probably highly related, and has been “in-the-works” for a long long time and certainly required much dev work, so I’m happy for tri-people that they finally got something there. Masters plans and regular plan rework are cool, but mostly content work. RLGL is kinda neat and unexpected, but I wouldn’t say it’s changed much for me.
I dunno, I guess I’m a little underwhelmed. The core functions continue to work well… ie, the “workout player”. The new stuff just seems like exactly the things you should be working on, but I don’t feel like the pace has improved any.
You have missed “Under the hood improvements” of your chart, according to the release notes there have been a lot of changes in this area
I generally agree with this. Last time around, it came across as “we want to add all these features, so we are needing to increase the price to fund it” and now it’s “we added all those features so we are increasing the price because value was added”. Seems like double dipping on the reasoning here.
Here’s the state of that. WLV2 is used in some ML analysis in AI FTP Detection. It’s in a state that improves the accuracy of AI FTP Detection but isn’t at the level where it’s close enough to change what your next workout is.
Right now the roadmap for features is → RLGL in Plan Builder (volume recommendation), WLV2 on TR workouts, WLV2 on outside workouts.
We have prototypes of both RLGL plan builder and WLV2 on TR workouts. We’re doing TR workouts first because there are less variables and it let’s us validate WLV2 on a larger scale.
I believe you’ll renew at 189, then the next one will be 209.99 in july 2025. That’s just based on timing when this will probably happen.
I don’t think we’ll explain it. The whole system is complex and it will constantly be updated. Anything we say will get outdated.
It can also lead to misinformation on the forum.
