I came to the forum to see any comments of the new TrainerRoad indoor training software, but was surprised to find none. I have used the software only for a short time, but my experiences are very good.

See for yourselves:http://www.trainerroad.com.

Looks good, but I see they are about to start charging a monthly subscription for it. Think I'll stick with Golden Cheetah.

It's a pretty good program and a great idea. I've been using it without any issues. I also use their plans.

If you like TheSufferFest videos they have the graphs for that as well.

Nate from http://www.TrainerRoad.com here. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Interesting product, but to pay for it?? Utter waste of time.

Unless there are some hidden features not advertised I see little point.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

The most valuable feature for me is the virtual power. As I don't have a power meter I am still able to train with power during the winter time.

Actual power meters suffer from variance. Virtual power doubly so. The more variance in reading and lack of consitency makes it a gimmick, at best. Waste of time in my opinion.

For long efforts you'd be better off using time, HR and RPE, shorter efforts - time and RPE.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

It's going to vary on a few factors; Tire tensions, air pressure and tire wear. On top of that some trainers have a drift due to heat accumulation.

Some though, after you warm them up, are very solid. It's just physics, so I'm sorta surprised by Tapeworm's reaction. Tapeworm, do you feel that the Lemond Revolution power pilot is also a gimmick? They're working on the same assumptions that we are.

On the other hand, I'm not surprised by his reaction. We haven't been doing a good job of publishing data to show how accurate VirtualPower is. We have a few parts on order so that we can hook a motor up to a bike on a Trainer and generate repeatable tests. I think when we show that people can make informed decisions on which Trainer they want to use and what they're getting out of it.

I think that if you don't have/can't afford a power meter and have a decent trainer, then VirtualPower is a superior choice when compared to HR or RPE based Training. A power meter will be more accurate, but you can use TrainerRoad for 20 years before spending the same amount of money on a power meter. So it's just a decision for people to make about how they want to spend their money.

Our existing customers think that we greatly enhance indoor trainer workouts (whether they use a power meter, VirtualPower or a HR monitor). A lot of people say they actually USE their trainer now and ENJOY it. You don't hear people saying they enjoy the trainer very often.

There are also some big names using it and paying for it, including Simon Whitfield. But, if you feel like you already have great indoor workouts, don't get bored during them and are motivated to do them then we aren't the product for you and you would be wasting your money on us.

I'm actually anxious for the next workout everytime, following one of your plans. Then again, I'm green, so any guidance is welcome...and who doesn't like more stats (then going by RPE).

I'm interested to see if you'll be able to create a method to calibrate the trainers to correspond to their virtual power formula (I have a KK Road Machine).

Yah, we're looking at roll down tests to do calibration. This could help solve drift on units that heat up (similar to what computrainer does). And it could let you tighten down your rear wheel differently and not have to worry about it.

ANT+ doesn't have a super high resolution though so that adds some challenges too.

btw, that's a great quote! Can I quote you on the website?

Yeah, for sure you can use the quote !

Yes. Estimated power is an estimate. Same reason the iBike is a gimmick.



Data is always good. The more the better.



Given how cheap you can get a second hand power meter these days I'd be curious to see the price differential.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG

Yah, I agree the I bike is a gimmick. There are too many variables outdoors to make that accurate.

As you said before, even power meters fluctuate and have variance, sometimes on the same ride due to heat.

I think the key thing is that we give people motivation and greater accuracy than RPE and HR while on the Trainer. I really do believe that with the right trainer you can be relatively consistent numbers between sessions.

For example, if you have the setup the same holding 25mph on a kurt kinetic road machine after it warms up will produce the same watts. You're just moving a set of blades through liquid. Drive train loss and rolling resistance are going to affect those numbers, but if you keep those consistent you should have a "VIRTUAL" power meter. Hence the name virtual...it's not really a power meter and it won't be as accurate as a power meter. Depending on your rear wheel tension those numbers could be off 20-30 watts. If you stay consistent though you'll ALWAYS get them to be the same number of watts off. That's the value we're offering.

The resistance units on trainers are usually nice closed systems, so it's easier to write a formula around them. With the iBike there's just too many variables outdoors.

I thought I'd offer up some data to make it more clear about how accurate VirtualPower is. (not saying that it's super accurate, just accurate enough to train with)

This ride was done on a Kurt Kinetic Rock n Roll road machine and a PowerTap. I rode with the rear tire at 1 1/2 turns and PSI at 120 with a continental trainer tire.

Here's the first graph. You can see here that VirtualPower is about 31 watts higher than my power tap.



If you apply a y-intercept offset of -31 you can see the two graphs are pretty close. There's a little bit of drift over the course of the workout but not enough to get worked up about. I'm also assuming that my PowerTap didn't drift. It has a 1.5% accuracy claim.


Note, all of this data has an 8 second rolling average applied to it to smooth it.

That should give you a better idea about how it compares to a power meter. I do think it kicks the shit of out a heart rate monitor .

So how do you apply an offset if you have no power meter?

Very neat to estimate power but not worth paying for.

I would say, though, I would rank this above CycleOps new HR "virtual power" meter.

_________________
"Physiology is all just propaganda and lies... all waiting to be disproven by the next study."
"I'm not a real doctor; But I am a real worm; I am an actual worm." - TMBG