Finally, we agree on something! 
Well since all of this LT talk, I have been doing more reading on LT. Although I am still going to be usning the Accusport, because i find it to help with athletes in developing their individual fitness profile (guaging progress etc) it probably will even take even a more back seat roll in in the testing proccess. Well, I use the term “zones” because it make speople feel comfortable. I have found that in the fitness industry, people like tangible things, heart rate zones, calorie consumption amounts (burned per hr) etc. There is a close cross over in the sporting wolrd because people like info, segue aside, I actually utilize HR ceilings for training, so my athletes for certain W/Os do not exceed vertain Hrs. Except for when they do tempo and Rep work. Tempo has to be more precise and that is done by pace, with HR as a secondary measure but they cant go to fast or to slow. Rep pace, due to the short “violent” efforts, their HRs dont respond fast enough, so on the bike, it is all power, and on the run it is again by pace, I still plot the HRs afterwards because I like to track that info in my files for them.
I also must correct myself. I said two days ago that the Cardiocoach uses Wassermans formula for AT detection. In fact it does not. It uses strickly the V-slope formula. I was having a conversation with a coworker who does my testing in Texas and we were discussing Wasserman and Davis and his name was on my mind. My mistake sorry for all the confusion!