Frankly, my 2 cents if anyone cares, you guys are trying to compete with Zwift and the others on their home turf. Not by becoming a copy of Zwift, but by trying to aim at their customer base. Canāt blame you.
Apparently you came to the conclusion that Mt. Sufferlandria scares that customer base off, so even that name had to change. Again, canāt blame you.
So, do I understand it? Sure!
Do I think it will make you more āsuccessfulā, economically in the future? It probably will. You will lose a few who were here for the spirit more than anything. You will also not gain a few potential future customers. I personally convinced two to join you, and I did so by showing them Sufferlandria and all it has to offer. They would not have joined had you been ājust anotherā training platform. But you will probably convince many more to join you, who were scared to visit Sufferlandria with the prospect of never being able to leave.
But, do I like it? After thinking about it for a few hours, clear No!
I like the new content, new features, all that. But the fact you took Sufferlandria more or less out of the equation? I feel like it will ruin a good portion of my personal experience here.
And do I believe you can keep up the Sufferlandrian spirit here? Sorry dudes, but to me it currently feels youāve become afraid to even set our flag, because people might not be able to see the beauty in a person with blood in their eyes. No, I donāt think the Sufferlandrian spirit on this platform will survive this transformation.
The big mountain, come on!
My calendar / workout / plan -related roadmap would read:
Calendar UI needs sorting ASAP, specifically drag-and-drop and being able to reschedule multiple workouts and push out / refactor a plan due to missed days / life events etc. Period. Everyone knows this, including the devās, so hopeful this one is just around the corner.
Calendar sync / rss feed for viewing your upcoming training calendar elsewhere would seem to be a relatively simple and standalone feature to implement without rocking the boat, so again hopeful this will be seen sometime soon.
Syncing workouts and completed activities to/from other platforms seems the next logical progression - allowing workouts to completed cycling outside, also to some people more compelling would be run and swim workouts available on their watches, adding a bit more meat to the ambition of being the definitive platform for endurance athletes - and in turn seeing non-SYSTM activities imported would be the building block forā¦
Data driven fitness analytics, similar to TrainingPeaks, which only makes sense once ALL the data is there to analyse (both SYSTM and other platforms).
Finally some dynamic workouts / plans / rescheduling based on current fitness, previous workouts, availability etc.
Separately, from a technical standpoint, I feel the major omission is still a lack of support for elegant projecting from mobile to the big screen (ie. not just clunky mirroring), using AirPlay and ChromeCast. Get these two nailed (cross-platform, as done in lots of other media-focused apps) and a huge percentage of your user base will benefit (ie. that has a compatible mobile device and a TV setup that supports AirPlay or ChromeCast). I bet even the constant call for the elephant-in-the-room missing Apple TV app would reduce, slightly.
When you start a workout, open the settings and go to the display tab, then change from āVideo crop: 16:9 Above Graphā to āVideo Crop: Scale to Fitā
Just wanted to give you some positive feedback from someone who downloaded a few vids some time ago and managed to pick up the black kit for Brisbane.
I love where you have taken the fest. It is more engaging, motivating and exciting than it ever has been. I look forward to what is planned, (how amazing would it be if we got to a stage where we no longer needed to use training peaks as well)!
Also, I am no IT guru, but I had no dramas switching to the new app and navigating my way around.
Thank you!
Ps. Slightly disappointed the 16th, and the extra long effort in revolver werenāt removed!!
After my somewhat negative feedback a few minutes ago, allow me to second timboās statement here. From a pure training perspective, I like what I could see during the first hours a lot!
Looking at content and variety and training methodology I always thought you guys ate top notch, and this seems like a leap to an even higher level.
Also the transition was super smooth for me (on a Mac), no drama whatsoever.
So to make this clear, Iām not going to quit. Iām just sad because I fear we will lose the spirit, and because despite all the threatsā¦ehm, sorry, promises, there now seems to be a way to leave Sufferlandria.
In Rouvy, for example, you can ride on a road, the program changes the power requirement based on gradient and speed and when uploaded on strava your track is shown on a map with the climbed meters.
But if you change setting reducing the % of the simulation, the power requirement reduces, but not the total elevation.
In the end even here in SYSTM (or sufferfest) most of the videos are taken from real roads, so why not to add coordinates and elevation?
I see the point for simulated environments like Zwift, Rouvy, RGT etc., but this is not the case for SYSTM (still strange not to write Sufferfest), thus I canāt really see the point to add fictitious elevation to that?
Training indoors is 99% about power/effort. Thatās what all the sports-science that builds the workouts and plans focus on.
Even quantifying/measuring ādistanceā while indoors is somewhat misleading (thus many argue shouldnāt be included/used when logged on Strava etc) though there is the rule-of-thumb argument along the lines of āif someone like this (weight/size) road a bike like this (type/weight) using standard modelling (weather, rolling resistance factors, aerodynamics etc) and put out xyz power for this amount of time they would have covered around xy kmā.
Trying to insert elevation into this fakery going too far (imo), while training with power at least. The model would simply reduce the distance in place of some elevation - someone putting out xyz power for an hour can either do xx km on the flat or less km and some elevation, not both. All in all pretty meaningless. That is unless you were specifically simulating a climb/route, in which case other apps include it.
Which is basically saying that the elevation data is just āmade upā because if the power requirement reduces but you still get the elevation āscoreā anyway then what is the point? We could all just start riding motorbikes up Mount Everest just to pad out our Strava score.
What does this add to the Sufferfest experience (which is the only question that matters)?
I āget itā in a simulation environment, but Sufferfest is not a cycling simulation. However, I donāt get that implementation at all, because that is just giving a number for the sake of a number.
Agreed. Nice design and works great on my M1 Macbook Air.
Yes, please! In addition to the sync idea as described:
1.An option to download a file of the workout (e.g., FIT file for Garmin running watches or a ZWO for Zwift running)
2. Please offer a Coros workout sync / download option, too.
Yup.
This is mostly my experience. My Sufferfest simulated speed is actually pretty accurate compared to my outdoor riding, I live in a relatively flat location. The numbers I see coming out of some of my friendsā Zwift rides bear no semblance to our outdoor reality at all.
I too am of the leaning that virtual elevation data should definitely be discounted by Strava and while I wouldnāt argue for it myself I would accept the same going for virtual miles.
Just as a very minor request, since youāre considering requestsā¦but please donāt do it like RGT does it.
The differences at first glance might not be obvious - but basically, RGT requires you always use both the smartphone app and the Apple TV app (in order to use the Apple TV app). In other words, they basically just made a bigger AirPlay, rather than having the code run on Apple TV. As a result, it can be finicky. And is overly complicated. If your phoneās battery dies mid-ride, your ride is dead, even though Apple TV is obviously still plugged in.
Zwift on the other hand, the code runs entirely on Apple TV. In their case, the companion app is just that - a companion. You donāt have to use it, but rather, it adds to the experience with easier control of Zwift-specific features quickly than the Apple TV remote can quickly. But at the end of the day, the companion app isnāt required for core functionality (but is for things like chatting or other social/race interactions).
In my mind, the best near-term Apple TV example for SYSTM to follow here is actually FulGaz. The whole app just runs straight-up on Apple TV, and doesnāt require or leverage a companion app.
Looking at SYSTM, Iād struggle to think of many (even any) functions that are super time-sensitive enough mid-workout that you couldnāt just use the Apple TV remote to complete them on-screen. Perhaps down the road having a companion app makes sense if the platform were to expand a bit.
But if it were me, Iād be ājustā taking your existing full-app codebase and porting it to tvOS, versus trying to reinvent the wheel. And yes, I know the word ājustā carries a lot more weight than that.
It was just have elevation and map data, as I said because the videos are on ārealā roads.
At the moment we get distance based on trainer artificial distance, but I can ride say 20 km using a 34x19 or 40 km using a 50x15 on the same video.
So at that point, why do we get distance and not only time?
Because youāve covered different distancesā¦ You have actually ridden different distances (assuming different power outputs, if youāre on ERG mode and with Sufferfest/SYSTM controlling speed then you should get the same distance calculation)
If you had simulated elevation ābased on the videoā then do we all get the elevation that Mike Cotty climbed, because that was what was shown, despite the fact most of us got nowhere near that elevation? (which is what youāre suggesting)
Do different people get different elevations based upon their power outputs, but this then doesnāt tie to the video (and still isnāt correct)?
Again, what does this actually add to the experience?
The videos also cut and jump about, so itās not just one long ride up a single climb.
I honestly donāt see what benefit this adds aside from (falsely) allowing people to complete Strava challenges, which isnāt a good enough reason.
Yes weāre on āreal roadsā and yes a lot of the time the workouts have been cleverly designed (and/or more to the point the videos carefully selected and edited) so that the power targets roughly match with the video storyā¦ ie. when on a team time trial your efforts are harder as you get nearer the front and then ease off when swinging to the back.
But these are only rough matches (albeit done very well) and change with the specific % of each fitness area being targeted for that specific workout - ie. the sports-science bit we pay the money for!
Currently, different people doing the same workout will log different distances, based both on THEIR physique and THEIR power targets of the day, but all doing the same video, for the same time, on the same real roads. In other words, if you were to go measure the actual distance of these real roads IRLā¦ you would find the distance you log on SYSTM completing them will be different. This is different to say Zwift or RGT whereby they are attempting to simulate actual routes - these would match with distance (and elevation) - but require different individuals to put out different power to complete them and in a variable time.
Beyond power, itās all just an estimateā¦ and I donāt see how adding elevation into the mix adds anything to it, unless Iām missing something?
