Wake Up Trainerroad!



just one of the threads where some strong hints have been dropped…


It wasn’t the PC that killed DEC VMS it was WNT.


I’m saying both (a) and (b). If your niche is too small - it’s easy for other to catch up with you.
It’s not such a bad thing to update and refresh your niche. Not necessarily in the direction of gaming, social etc.


Windows NT, designed by… Dave Cutler… who designed VMS… and then W2000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Cutler
Enough - this is not cycling and getting faster…


Lets be honest, most of us choose TR because -
Old user -
1). It was almost the single SW that ran at the local training center (as we didn’t have a trainer at home).
2) It was one of the very few SW at the time that could handle different and various smart trainers.
3). It was recommended by someone we knew or rode with.
4). It was easy for our coach to give us a workout to do on our own using TR.
5). The structure and the training plans appeals and is useful.
6). It has branded itself as a professional platform. Focused on the workout itself.
7). It’s darn easy to use and operate.
8). Probably more, but lets end it here. (podcasts you can listen regardless of the SW).

New User (Today) -
How much of that list is still true and unique to TR?
You are all saying that you could care less about ‘social’. But ‘social’ effects your decision in more ways you care to admit. Out of 25 new riders in our local cycling club - none went to use TR despite my recommendations. Instead they are converting in some twisted ways similar workouts and doing them on other platform. Why? because they want to be where the hype is. All I’m saying is that you don’t need to copy others, just intensify your own ‘hype’. Don’t stand still.


Well, that’s one way to slice it


As a new user (being honest)

  1. I have strava for “social”. I choose not to have many followers but real people I actually know and care about.
  2. I tried Zwift - did not suit me for workouts. I looked at SF but decided it was too much fluff. I Looked at TR and decided it was a serious solution and well structured. And avoided silly distractions. It also worked extremely well with the then Direto and works well now my Kickr Core.
  3. I have since learnt a lot from the forum and videos. And in conversation with those with similar training plans/race plans.
  4. It is not merely “The structure and the training plans appeals and is useful”, but that i trust them as a good design (and the fit with what to have read in various training design books.
  5. And they are tailored to my intended regimes.
  6. I am not converted in some twisted way.
  7. I know people who are spending £200 a month (plus) for a coach (!!FGS!). I do not believe that is good value for money for me and I can self coach myself well enough, using the TR structures. I am a responsible adult - I can make sensible decisions. TR seems very sensible
  8. I respect my mates who use Zwift, SF, other coaches. It suits them. Fine.
  9. Chad seems very level headed - almost understated. I like that a lot. He also makes time for the forum and posts often, which amazes me. Nate is entertaining and asks dumb questions. I like that. I used to think Jonathan was a bit irritating, but have grown to like him (Sorry Jonathan). They sound a level headed team and no bull****.

I am sticking with TR. I have a stupid set of races and season to train for. Good enough for me.


That is valid point. I also don’t know anybody who has recently signed up with TR or is at least using TR in parallel to Zwift.

The problem is that one currently does not know if TR is making you faster than Zwift is… It would definitely help if TR would publish statistics on (FTP) improvements of their user base. Right now new users are selecting between the potentially better workouts versus the more “exciting” user interface. While the one is tangible the other is not.

We are talking of a fast growing market though where TR probably still sees very healthy (absolute) growth. I assume there have never been sold as many trainers as in 2018 due to the growing popularity of indoor training. I also assume the market share for TR has been decreasing with popularity of Zwift.


Ummm, have you looked? These exist. Overwhelmingly exist.


IT’s really interesting seeing the different points of view (especially being able to see the differences being debated on an internet forum without descending into name calling and flaming - trainerroad has a great class of users).
Personally, I don’t want to see TR move away from what it is currently doing well. I don’t want to see any gamification and I like that I get to choose the entertainment that works best for me.
I do like the community aspects and really enjoyed feeling part of that community with the disaster day at the end of last year. Part of that though was that it fitted in nicely with my existing training plans so did not get in the way.
For my personal needs and my personality, I think trainerroad is the best existing platform out there. Obviously this won’t be the case for everyone.
I do have some concerns regarding trainerroad being able to compete on pure marketing terms with other big players. Zwift has a much bigger profile so seems to be what people try first, whether or not it is the best thing for them and their goals. SO, for me, the big question is how does TR raise it’s profile (if that is really necessary currently) so that more people give it a try, without moving away from the things that they do well.


Agree. This is something TR needs to figure out. Tailored and adaptive plans will be an important part of retaining their target customer segment(s) over the long run.

An important starting point for a tailored plan is an athlete physiological profile. TR is already behind sufferfest who has 4DP. Not that 4DP is perfect, but it’s a way for a user to understand relative strengths/weaknesses better.

I think TR has the leadership position in its target segments, but it needs to continue to innovate to stay there.


I wish I had time and energy to popcorn these threads.


You can figure all that out by using the personal records feature and also look through different seasons to see where you are improving, i did the 4dp thing and its extremly basic and a very bad way of testing IMO


Except that those business turned obsolete because of new technology which rendered their product/service useless (and Blockbuster was definitely not niche!).

If anything, the new tech of virtual training/coaching services have reduced actual real-person coaching services to a niche service. This is due, IMO, mainly due to cost. You can’t hire a coach for $10/mo. But then again, TR et al are totally cookie cutter programs which will allow you to harvest your low hanging fruit but not much beyond that (if you are a dedicated and serious athlete).

TR could indeed use social media to a much greater extent, and much more effective manner, than they currently are doing. They might be best suited to figure out how to do it in a more “intelligent” way than the usual anywhere & everywhere marketing blitz used by other virtual services.


Why do you think that 4DP is more sophisticated than the Personal Records curve?


Just reading through this thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned but I do feel a certain amount of affinity with the OP. What makes TrainerRoad different is its number of workouts and plans and yes a lot of people like following those without the clutter or ‘distraction’ of videos, music or virtual worlds. However I don’t think it would take the likes of Zwift or Sufferfest very much to up their number of plans and workouts if thats a direction of travel they’re interested in. That in itself might be enough to persuade a number of subscribers to move to an alternative platform and if subscribers drop what then happens to TrainerRoad?
My personal wish would be for TrainerRoad to not add music or video into existing platform but to add additional content that will aid training like the Sufferfest includes (Yoga, Strength work outs) and add those into plans.


I know lots of us have moved over to TR from the other programs, so I don’t think it’s an issue of anyone losing market share, I think it is more a case of consumers sorting themselves into the training software experience that most appeals to them. So really, it’s not one market, but multiple markets. We’re all cyclists, just like people shopping for clothes are all people shopping for clothes, but you can’t say that Supreme and Brooks Brothers are competing for the same market.


For one, the TR Personal Record is just that, a record. There is no guidance or adjustment applied with any info provided or gleaned from it. The PR must be reviewed by the user, and if any action is to be taken, it requires some research and/or guidance to make any worthwhile decisions.

The 4DP is an adaptive program that takes the results from the test and adjust workouts each and every time, based on that info. I don’t know all the details, but it works to actively alter some or all of a given workout to target the “weak” areas found within a rider’s 4DP profile.

To that end, we have seen many hints that TR is headed in something of a similar direction. No specifics yet, but the data review and other comments about compliance and setting training are slight windows into what I expect to be a good (potentially great) solution that will push TR further into the lead of training offerings.


If you only train with power whilst doing a TrainerRoad plan (no racing with a PM) you’ll get a power curve that I could draw for you right now as it’s set by your percentage of FTP: There are no max efforts in there except for the ramp test.

4DP, whilst not perfect, actually tests 4 durations and sets the workout intensities according the the results of the test. Not sophisticated, but it doesn’t need to be. At least it’s not self determining…



The latest example of hints at the pending features from TR:

Far from stagnating, I see TR as progressing and likely pushing the evolution of training apps well into the future. This being with substantive features that lead to quantifiable results (hopefully) over more superficial fluff, but that’s just my opinion.