A new simplified power data platform start up from CA, FL and Berlin … strivemax.com … it’s free, anybody in?
As it is free, how are they making money on it?
It is very hard to assess what it does without signing up and I’m not signing up until I figure out how they make money. There is something odd about a company that exposes so little of how their product works and how they are going to monetise their product.
I think this is a phony site that just wants your e-mail address to spam you.
Based on the screenshots, it looks like it calculates “training load” (a.k.a., TSS), “time-specific max-power” (a.k.a., mean maximal power at specific durations), “power fingerprint” (a.k.a., your mean maximal power curve, plotted against log time), and the Performance Manager (I wonder why they didn’t rename that as well?).
IOW, one of bazillion websites out there presenting ideas pioneered by myself, Hunter Allen, and Kevin Williams, without absolutely zero evidence of any original thought.
How are you aware of any connection to California or Germany? I can’t find anything on those pages or the website making those links. Are you affiliated with the company somehow?
I found them by a recommendation of power2max. Reading the german version I gave it a try and started a chat with them. Richard responded prompt and answered that question. Because there is still some time for convalescence I’m in mood to collect informations to deploy them next season …
No, it doesn’t work like twitter. They provide graphs that are interesting for me when I’m actually interested …
A new simplified power data platform start up from CA, FL and Berlin … strivemax.com … it’s free, anybody in?
I just can’t believe there is no one except handful of people that are really innovative and smart to put all the test in to the training theory and invent something new.
Everyone else just simply duplicating the same zone based training.
FTP, performance manager… Endurance zone… They didn’t even bother to change the naming from Training Peaks…and serving this as their own cake, or at list very gently implying it is their own thing, sneaky…
And for how long this will be free? Once they have few 1000s users cost of hosting will go up and they will introduce some fee. I say screw it, go with original creators of the concept and pay few bucks for Trainingpeaks account or use free software like Golden Cheetah that includes many ideas.
Thanks for your input …
I’m really no historian in trainings methods theory. Some things are simple and some things are complex, in both cases complicate solutions increase the noise.
Setting the next intervals I use GoldenCheetah, the TrainingPeaks account sleeps, STRAVA is like greetings buddies missed on the road and some other platforms can answer ore confirm special requests. I’m just still curious what is out there to make analysis responding more intuitiv for/to me.
Because there is no other commitment than my interest & uploaded files I’m not depending on their buisnes, their answers to my questions appear easy readily …
How are you aware of any connection to California or Germany?
Seems like it is a US based company:
Contact Information
Registrant Contact
Name: Simon Rozenberg
Organization:
Mailing Address: 21050 NE 38TH AVE #602, AVENTURA Florida 33180 US
Phone: +1.9546088549
Ext:
Fax:
Fax Ext:
Email:simon.rozenberg@gmail.com
.
I appreciate all the effort that Training Peaks has put into the science of training, that is why I am a paying customer. I just wish they would place the same emphasis on workflow, design/layout, and public facing API that they put into pushing the science forward.
There is a reason all these ‘copycat’ sites keep popping up. It isn’t because the fundamental ideas are any better or different, it is because they believe they can present the data in a cleaner, more intuitive way. They are attempted to innovate on the design side and not the science side. Just because it isn’t what you contribute to doesn’t mean it isn’t innovation, it just means it is a different emphasis.
I appreciate all the effort that Training Peaks has put into the science of training, that is why I am a paying customer. I just wish they would place the same emphasis on workflow, design/layout, and public facing API that they put into pushing the science forward.
Out of curiosity, why are you addressing this to me? I don’t work for TrainingPeaks, and never have.
There is a reason all these ‘copycat’ sites keep popping up. It isn’t because the fundamental ideas are any better or different, it is because they believe they can present the data in a cleaner, more intuitive way. They are attempted to innovate on the design side and not the science side. Just because it isn’t what you contribute to doesn’t mean it isn’t innovation, it just means it is a different emphasis.
How much design innovation does a simple website displaying a “dashboard” of graphs actually represent?
I guess I am confused by your signature
Co-developer, WKO4 software, and originator of the following concepts: Coggan classic training levels, normalized power (NP), intensity factor (IF), training stress score (TSS), power profiling, quadrant analysis, the Performance Manager Chart (PMC), the WKO4 power-duration model, auto-phenotyping, elevation-corrected power, new individualized training levels (“iLevels”), gross power released (GPR), gross power absorbed (GPA), kurtotic index (KI), asymmetry index (AI), and maximum effective pedal force (MEPF) metrics to describe pedaling, and running effectiveness for runners. Some lead, others follow.
especially the ‘co-developer, WKO4…’ title. That would usually indicate that the company that produces WKO4, i.e. Training Peaks, has compensated you at some point in time for your development effort. If this is not the case then my first paragraph isn’t really applicable to you.
How much design innovation does a simple website displaying a “dashboard” of graphs actually represent?
Having not used this site I have no idea how much design innovation they have…I am just speaking to the larger issue of several sites trying to emulate and beat Training Peaks at their own game by innovating on the design side and not the science side. Maybe I’m wrong (wouldn’t be the first time) but most people don’t start off building products thinking there isn’t some aspect they can improve.
IOW, one of bazillion websites out there presenting ideas pioneered by myself, Hunter Allen, and Kevin Williams, without absolutely zero evidence of any original thought.
Sometimes skillfull, customer-friendly execution trumps original thought. E.g. Apple wasn’t the first with a smartphone, or a desktop-metaphor computer.
Strava is world-dominating because it’s quick and easy to use and pleasant to look at. Unlike
Welcome to capitalism.
I guess I am confused by your signature
Co-developer, WKO4 software, and originator of the following concepts: Coggan classic training levels, normalized power (NP), intensity factor (IF), training stress score (TSS), power profiling, quadrant analysis, the Performance Manager Chart (PMC), the WKO4 power-duration model, auto-phenotyping, elevation-corrected power, new individualized training levels (“iLevels”), gross power released (GPR), gross power absorbed (GPA), kurtotic index (KI), asymmetry index (AI), and maximum effective pedal force (MEPF) metrics to describe pedaling, and running effectiveness for runners. Some lead, others follow.
especially the ‘co-developer, WKO4…’ title. That would usually indicate that the company that produces WKO4, i.e. Training Peaks, has compensated you at some point in time for your development effort. If this is not the case then my first paragraph isn’t really applicable to you.
Easy mistake to make, which is why I always point it out.
For the record, WKO4 was developed by Peaks Coaching Group, which then spun off Velocious Software. My compensation has come/comes from them, not TrainingPeaks.
IOW, one of bazillion websites out there presenting ideas pioneered by myself, Hunter Allen, and Kevin Williams, without absolutely zero evidence of any original thought.
Sometimes skillfull, customer-friendly execution trumps original thought. E.g. Apple wasn’t the first with a smartphone, or a desktop-metaphor computer.
Strava is world-dominating because it’s quick and easy to use and pleasant to look at. Unlike
Welcome to capitalism.
Indeed, the website in question is very Strava-esque in its simplicity. Hence, the reason why you wonder why they even bothered.
I’d suggest putting “WKO4 software (not TrainingPeaks)” in your signature line to avoid this confusion in the future, however I can tell you are concerned with keeping your signature line concise so that won’t do.
I’d suggest putting “WKO4 software (not TrainingPeaks)” in your signature line to avoid this confusion in the future, however I can tell you are concerned with keeping your signature line concise so that won’t do.
Just following Linus Pauling’s suggestion: the way to have a good idea is to have a lot of ideas.
For what its worth folks, I think that the training science (based on the body of knowledge developed by experts like Andrew) is much squared away—at least for the majority of AGs (which is where the money is, right?). The forward integration is pretty polished. I do some exercise, the watch automatically syncs with Garmin Connect (GC) which then pushes that data to any number of connected “applications” (i.e. Strava, Training Peaks, etc…) which then do analytics and so on. So the data flows “forwards” i.e. from watch to application.
So where is the development opportunity? Well I think it lies in backwards integration. WTF? Well let me explain: I get workouts scheduled in TP by a coach. They typically look like this:
20 min at hr 115 - 135
5 x 5 min at hr 154 - 171, 4 min at hr 125
20 min at hr 115 - 135
So now I’ve got to go into GC and create the workouts, schedule them, and then push the calendar onto my watch. This is a ball ache. Why the repetition? The backwards flow of data from application to watch is going to provide a competitive advantage over the multitude of similar offerings.
Just noticed this:
StriveMax has scrubbed their website, renaming the Performance Manager the “Performance Tracker” as a dodge around TrainingPeaks’ trademark. That’s sad enough, but they also renamed CTL and ATL as “Fitness” and “Fatigue”, which they most definitely do NOT really represent.
While they were at it, they deleted my comment about how the table in this blog post:
https://strivemax.com/blog/training-zones-what-you-need-to-know/
clearly violates my and Hunter Allen’s copyrights (which per usual practice are assigned to VeloPress).
As I said before, just another pale imitator trying to make money off of other people’s ideas, and in the process doing the world a disservice by sowing confusion…