Yesterday, TrainingPeaks and indieVelo announced big news in the indoor cycling space: TrainingPeaks has acquired indieVelo and effective immediately, indieVelo has been renamed TrainingPeaks Virtual.
A Bit of History
I first started hearing about indieVelo back in May of 2023, when George Gilbert reached out to me with an invite to give it a spin before it became available to the public.
(George, astute readers may recall, first stepped into the indoor cycling scene as chairman of ZADA – Zwift’s Cycling Esports Commission – a team responsible for “maintaining, implementing and communicating” Zwift’s Cycle Esports & Regulations which applied to a small number of top-tier races.)
After launching indieVelo beta in June 2023, George continued developing the platform at a rapid pace, sending out weekly emails with a list of updates. He would often end his emails with something like this (taken from a recent mailing):
With 100% of the indieVelo roadmap determined by your ideas and suggestions, every piece of feedback is incredibly valuable and really makes a difference to the continued improvement of indieVelo each and every week.
It was clear that George’s experience at ZADA had shown him the pain points of current performance verification tech and key areas where virtual bike racing could be improved. From indieVelo’s launch, his message has been consistent: he’s working to develop a platform for accurate and engaging eracing.
But where was it all heading? How long could George continue to maintain the platform as a one-man army? Even as the number of subscribers recently passed the 40,000 mark, and many of them chose to join the “Founders Club” to support the platform’s upkeep and development, it was sort of a forgone conclusion that being acquired was the next step, and that step was coming soon.
The question was, by who?
A Buyer Is Found
Enter TrainingPeaks – the popular training app used by cycling coaches to schedule workouts and track fitness.
I’m not sure anyone saw this coming, although in hindsight it makes sense. Here’s a snippet from TrainingPeaks’ press release (I bolded some text for emphasis):
The newly acquired assets of indieVelo now enable TrainingPeaks coaches to strengthen their communities with increased athlete engagement through virtually hosted group rides, events and races. With robust customization features, TrainingPeaks Virtual can look however the coach wants — with custom avatars, bikes, team kits and branded events.
“The core values of trust and authentic achievement are something that both indieVelo and TrainingPeaks share, and as TrainingPeaks Virtual, we are doubling down on that focus in the future,” said Gilbert. “This acquisition brings both the investment and the expertise needed to take it to the next level — creating a fully integrated, seamless training and racing platform, both indoors and out.”
TrainingPeaks
Effective immediately, George Gilbert is an employee at TrainingPeaks. And not just any employee – sources tell me his position within the company is at the VP level.
TrainingPeaks Virtual will remain free to use for the duration of the northern hemisphere winter, transitioning to a paid platform around March 2025. After that time, TrainingPeaks Virtual will only be available to users at the TrainingPeaks Premium Tier ($19.99/month or $124.99/year).
What Does It All Mean?
Of course, this is Zwift Insider, so it only makes sense to look at this news from a Zwifter’s perspective.
In some ways, the news of TrainingPeaks acquiring indieVelo feels a lot like the news of Wahoo acquiring RGT back in April 2022. It’s an established fitness company acquiring a small upstart competitor to Zwift.
But there are probably more differences here than similarities. RGT had a larger development team, and was more focused on cool maps and “Magic Roads” features while indieVelo has really focused on accurate esports racing from the beginning. Additionally, I always got the vibe that RGT’s development wasn’t a priority at Wahoo, while George Gilbert’s new VP-level position at TrainingPeaks would indicate that significant further investment into the platform is planned.
From Zwift’s corporate perspective, it shifts indieVelo from a tiny upstart (and potential acquisition target) to a serious competitor. That means there are three serious Zwift competitors today: MyWhoosh, Rouvy, and TrainingPeaks Virtual. Each platform has its own strengths and weaknesses. Put up against Zwift, MyWhoosh wins based on price (free), while Rouvy offers lots of “real” roads and indieVelo TrainingPeaks Virtual promises the most accurate racing experience.
Zwift is still the 800lb gorilla in the indoor cycling space, though. The platform’s cross-device compatibility and strong feature set coupled with its social focus and massive user base make it the obvious standard that all other indoor cycling apps are compared to.
On top of that, Zwift’s recent hardware releases – most notably the Zwift Ride – make it easier (and more affordable) than ever for new cyclists to get it on the fun.
But Zwift can’t rest if they want to maintain their dominance. They must continue developing compelling new features while polishing existing ones. And they must find ways to both improve and expand the content on the platform. That means races that are more fun than ever, group rides that really draw you into the supportive Zwift community, workouts that build fitness super-efficiently, fresh roads you want to explore… you get the idea.
I’ve said it before. and I’ll say it again: competition in this space is good for Zwifters since it keeps Zwift on their toes. It’ll be interesting to watch how things develop with TrainingPeaks Virtual moving forward, and if Zwift responds in any noticeable way to yesterday’s news.
Will TrainingPeaks Virtual maintain its racing focus, even though it’s been acquired by a company known for its training focus? Will current TrainingPeaks subscribers move to TrainingPeaks Virtual instead of Zwift since it’s part of the subscription they’re already paying? And will the development of TrainingPeaks Virtual continue at a high pace once it moves from a one-man show to a team?
Time will tell.
Your Thoughts
What do you think of this big news from TrainingPeaks+indieVelo? Share your thoughts below!
Having seen the partnership just announced with Xert, an idea for Zwift could be an annual bundled subscription for the services of the two platforms.
Ive often wanted a direct link for my Xert workouts into my TP planner. While the direct link to Zwift is great, I’ll just stick to using my Garmin to run my Xert workouts and I’ll use iV as I already subscribed to TP. No need to pay for two.
I was quite excited by Xerts partnership, being a Zwift and TR subscriber as it was a far cheaper offering.
Unfortunately my experience with Xert was that it sucked, the calendar was glitchy and the thing I never thought I’d miss was TRs workouts tapering up and down before each interval 3 seconds before the end.
“The wheel of fortune keeps turning.”
Honestly, I love Zwift’s environment design, but the fact that every update brings new rules—whether it’s changes to draft effects, the HUD, or something else—and those unpredictable Zwift racing scores, which have already become a laughing stock, have me seriously considering a switch to another platform (before it goes the same way 😉).
You can bet that every platform will have its wrinkles from time to time. While I struggle getting decent placement with my 2.9 w/kg, ZRS of ~290, I do see the ZRS (Zwift Racing Score) ironing this out for the better as data is collected with each rider. With my ZRS and age of 67, the younger riders with a slightly higher ZRS best me by a minute or more in all races. For me, the fun is the competition with the riders that fall off the first breakaway group and how well I can finish.
Yes, competition is good. Considering how big Zwift is in the market and that the community and the racing are the biggest sellling points for Zwift, it is surprisingly weak in those two areas.
In the community area there is much that could be done to improve clubs, for example. And the in-game chat should be split into several different channels like “World”, “Event”, “Club”, “Nearby”, etc. Zwift should look at how MMORPGs and similar games do it.
The companion app is really good. That’s a strong point for Zwift.
More types of races should be supported natively in-game. The only races that are supported in-game now are scratch races and individual time-trials. Points races and team time-trials (at least!) should be supported as well, without having to use an external website to see the results. TPVirtual can do much of this already.
isn’t there already TTT and points races in Zwift?
Yes, there is but you need to go to ZwiftPower or the WTRL website to see the results. The results should be available in Zwift as soon as the race is finished, including results on sprints in points races and split times for TTs.
Nope. They are both scratch races, the results are just hacked together afterwards.
Zwift has turned a deaf ear to the weight dopers, cheats and non-standardized trainers/power meters since the beginning. I mean the whole “stick or ghost” watts issue with their own equipment is case and point. Hopefully this TPV announcement makes them honest.
When you lose a race, sprint or somebody beats you on Strava do you blame their equipment or think they must be cheating or do you just reserve this for Zwift?
Dude. Seriously. Where in my comment did I mention anything about my performance? What are you adding to this discussion? My point is that there are known flaws and ways to exploit the zwift platform. This should help speed up addressing those issues. Don’t see something wrong with improving that? If so, what? Never, check any comments on Strava/zwift/media platforms have I said a word about my placing. BTW I typically don’t engage with trolls unless I know details around their own usership…1)Zwift miles/ time in game; 2) number of Zwift races; 3) IRL annual mileage; 4) Money spent on training, gear; events annually. Just to name a few. Unless all of this is high…YOUR opinion is irrelevant.
Colin, you’re Zwift shill and pufta.
Hopefully the competition will cause Zwift to finally make serious efforts to improve the racing system for riders and organizers.
The ZRS implementation is a glaring sign of how much improvement is needed.
The Zwift “World” has so much potential but feels like they need a “details” person to finish it.
I think you nailed the key point: Indie Velo has focused on helping the developers deliver an excellent product, because community races deliver value to subscribers. RGT had a decent community racing platform, with custom branding, and magic roads which could simulate local routes. But Zwift treats its community organizers as an afterthought, regularly clobbering their events with Zwift’s huge events with things like double XP and fancy branding.
Indie Velo has a wide range of event types and delivers results in an effective manner without 3rd party websites. So if I was an event organizer, that’s where I would go.
I don’t know how the pack dynamics compare with Zwift.
For “magic roads” people should check out BikeTerra, which does them better than RGT, and BikeTerra uses actual terrain data (RGT did not). But BikeTerra is not a real racing platform yet. It also runs in a browser window as opposed to a dedicated app.
I think you nailed the key point: Indie Velo has focused on helping the developers deliver an excellent product, because community races deliver value to subscribers. RGT had a decent community racing platform, with custom branding, and magic roads which could simulate local routes. But Zwift treats its community organizers as an afterthought, regularly clobbering their events with Zwift’s huge events with things like double XP and fancy branding.
Indie Velo has a wide range of event types and delivers results in an effective manner without 3rd party websites. So if I was an active event organizer, that’s where I would go.
I don’t know how the pack dynamics compare with Zwift. Others have said they really like them.
For “magic roads” people should check out BikeTerra, which does them better than RGT, and BikeTerra uses actual terrain data (RGT did not). But BikeTerra is not a real racing platform yet. It also runs in a browser window as opposed to a dedicated app.
The only reason Wahoo bought RGT was to use it as leverage against Zwift. The final “agreement”: Zwift exits the trainer market and Wahoo kills RGT.
Hmmm… but the timeline doesn’t support that. Wahoo bought RGT well before Zwift released the Zwift Hub (April 2022 vs September of 2022…)
If zwift is the biggest training platform that gives zwift some leverage over wahoo (even without any hardware business). If wahoo has a legit competitor to zwift then wahoo was more power then they would without one.
As far as I can see, TrainingPeaks Virtual doesn’t natively support AppleTV, so until that happens I don’t see the point 🙄
It does
No, it doesn’t as it’s not in the AppleTV App Store
They’ve added it about a week or so ago now. I’ve tried it twice this week and I’m cancelling my Zwift membership. I’ve not been racing in a long time and only doing structured workouts. TPV is free with TP premium so happy days!
it will be interesting to see what this winter’s peak usage is on Zwift. Eric probably has the best records for this.
I have never used iV, but I pay for Zwift and TP separately. Now I have the option to save money on Zwift and I consider it.
I’ve used IV and wasn’t keen. It’s technically superior and good for those wanting more ‘strategy’ with things like side winds and breaking in corners.
It just felt a bit sterile to me so I’ve stuck with Zwift, but I was heavily into the racing aspect I could see why it’s a better platform.
For those who try to install IV/TPV but the install stops indefinitely at “100% complete”: The solution is to “Run as administrator…” when you start the installation.
Writing has to be on the wall for TP workouts to sync into Zwift. Surely TP arnt going to want its users shifting off to a competitors platform.
I don’t see why, its in their interest to allow people to perform their TP workouts however the subscriber chooses.
Also they allow the sync of Zwift data into TP and they wouldn’t want to lose this connection.
It’s worth noting how robust the training functionality is on TPV (indieVelo):
Reading other articles about indiVelo its mentioned it was created to highlight how anti cheating features could be implemented with the aim to sell these features to other platforms like Zwift. Unfortunately nobody was interested in purchasing these features so I suspect the only option was to sell the company in order to allow growth as a platform and make some money.
I don’t think that TP purchasing indiVelo will make much difference to Zwift numbers because everybody already had access to indiVelo for free and yet only 40,000 people created accounts. So now there is a cost to use the platform it will be less attractive to most people.
I suspect the vast majority of people who use Zwift don’t have a paid for subscription to TP so these people won’t probably be jumping ship to a smaller platform that only has one world for now. It would be like riding Richmond all the time and nobody likes Richmond.
I’d also like to know what percentage of people actually race on Zwift compared to the people who don’t race. People like to think that the majority race on Zwift but I don’t suppose that is true otherwise Zwift would put more resources into “improving” the racing experience for paid members.
It depends on who you want to target. TrainingPeaks is a platform for professional and serious amateur athletes. The new development of iV will take this path and will give coaches and athletes more professional tools to improve their training. Zwift is a platform for bald, fat men in their 40s who out of a sudden want to exercise. They have different expectations.
Hey! I’m not bald 😠
Hey I’m in my 50’s
Yes, Zwifters love their cheating.
I’ve been using IndieVelo for over a year now. Cancelled my Zwift subscription after a couple of weeks riding on IndieVelo. It has a better vibe. Less cheating in races. In fact I never felt that anyone was cheating in a race. The rest of the platform is pretty similar to Zwift.
Training Peaks has a large membership, suddenly offering them an essentially free online virtual training environment could lead to a big exodus from Zwift. There will be a big pull away from Zwift for those who race and train regularly, because of its direct link to the coaching platform, but also because of the better racing dynamics and facilities/options. Its pace of development is far ahead of Zwift and its listened to what people have wanted. It already technically surpasses ZWIFT. If it expands it road network at the same rate it has, it will leave Zwift way behind. With Zwift potentially starting to look like and empty space in the near future. I’m only staying on ZWIFT to race with some friends this winter, but will jump ship once we finish.
But indievelo has been free for ages – anyone could use it for free whether they were members of TP or not. This has actually added a barrier (albeit only a small one) to using indievelo compared with a week ago (you need to create TP account)
Although I guess the news of this has given it a boost of free advertising that might make a lot of people curious to try it.
So the exodus, if it was one, has probably happened. It was about 40k people. Any free app is going to have people trying it even if they are still paying for and using zwift.
I think before they manage to compete with zwift they’ll first have to do a bit of marketing / PR of what TP virtual is and what it’s intended to become. Is it going to be mostly aimed at the kind of users training peaks already caters to? Or are they going after more casual cyclists and looking to expand?
All the existing PR for indievelo just blathers on about the UCI and fair racing – it was probably very relevant to their goal then but didn’t make me think “I’ll give it a try!” when I started reading it.
Maybe TP are just happy with TP’s current membership and goals and acquiring this was cheap? Maybe it’s not a big play to compete with zwift at all? Because training peaks has never really tried to get casual cyclists and convince them to cycle indoors on a trainer have they? It’s more of an interval training / coaching thing for athletes racing IRL Which obviously is a thing but it’s not a big thing is it? Most of the people down at my local cycling club are never going to join training peaks, although a few do, but training peaks probably doesn’t care. It’s never going to make sense for someone to invest hundreds of millions in it.
Zwift supposedly attracted that level of investment and has 10x the revenues of TP? Something of that order I believe. Obviously zwift doesn’t have more athletes – it has a lot of more casual cyclists – well for them to jump ship they are going to be looking for different things.
Zwift have to be looking to get people who aren’t currently subscribed. Perhaps they go out on a road bike and ride around their local roads now. They never did any racing. They never did an interval. They have no idea or interest in what their FTP is. They cycle a few times a week to keep fit, sometimes solo, perhaps also with a local club or a few friends, but not to train for anything. They might not even use a HR monitor or a power meter.
They probably do have a cycling computer and upload their rides to strava. These guys don’t have training peaks or zwift or mywhoosh and probably don’t own a trainer.
You know strava has of the order of 120 million users. Zwift about 10% of that, and indievelo is not a blip on either. Indievelo literally couldn’t give it away for free (albeit they probably didn’t try that hard – certainly not as hard as zwift have to attract users) But, surely, zwift are more interested in why that 90% on strava aren’t using zwift. The fantasy they tell their investors is that they can create something that means a lot of them will (and maybe they are right) But just because that’s zwift’s fantasy it doesn’t mean it’s training peaks fantasy.
It also shows that the idea that these 3 indoor cycling apps are now in a bun fight to grab current users like ourselves might not be that true. If one of them can make significant inroads into the tens of millions who haven’t even bought a trainer yet then it’s kind of immaterial which app we, the current users, use isn’t it?
Grow the pie rather than fight over the current pie. The question is : which of the 3 care about that, and do any of them actually have any good ideas to attract them and, if they have ideas can they actually write code and deliver them given whatever pile of money they currently have access to?
Somehow this group of cyclists need to be attracted to ride inside instead of outside. Eric Min said he was attracted to it because of London traffic. Maybe you have other people with kids, busy lives etc, maybe people who work from home. They might struggle to leave the house for 2 or 3 hours to ride off into the sticks, but who can sneak away and ride for an hour on a trainer in the spare room – so long as they’re still around if someone needs them.
But I think most people who ride outside love cycling outside – no matter what negatives are associated with it, traffic, weather, potholes, punctures et al.
It’s worth noting too that cycling outside is free. There’s no monthly subscription. It’s clear from some of the complaints on zwift’s forums that cyclists aren’t as used to paying monthly to keep fit as, say, gym users or indoor climbers are. As such their value judgement of zwift’s cost seems to make a lot of them think zwift is too expensive.
Even the ones that have bought a trainer to ride inside for 3-4 months of winter baulk at the cost of zwift. I’d suggest because they just rode 4 times a week for 8-9 months outside for nothing. Strava has been struggling for a long time to get them to pay, they’ve tried carrots and sticks. They’ve made it free, they’ve added features, they’ve removed them again.
So you have this massive group of potential users who mostly love cycling outside, they’re not adverse to paying thousands on equipment, clothes, shoes etc but they pretty much pay nothing to ride and, if you can convince them to pay a subscription they’re very suspicious especially if the amount seems higher than other things they might have been convinced to subscribe to (like netflix). I think it’s easier to convince them to buy a piece of equipment, like the trainer or a smart bike than it is to convince them to subscribe monthly.
Of course another possibility is that you hope to attract people who aren’t on strava, who aren’t cyclists. There’s obvious tons more of these but, to me, that’s a pipe dream. I think it’s already quite a stretch to imagine you’re going to get more strava users who run or cycle outside to come inside, but people who have thus far showed no interest at all? Well, it can happen – indoor climbing grew and is growing, people run off to gyms every January – but making indoor cycling a complete new thing that has millions of people, maybe tens of millions around the world? Well good luck with that if it’s the dream – I’m struggling to see who is going to create that on the evidence of the past decade.
But obviously Zwift are fantasising that the indoor cycling space will grow much bigger than it currently is – whoever it is that they see as the new users. If it doesn’t? Well how much money will the current users provide to develop the current services further? Especially if that money is spread over 3 different apps. Not a huge amount, especially if a lot of the current user base are only interested in cycling indoors during the winter months.
As for the current competition on a personal level I stream zwift from my desktop PC to another device that’s in my garage. As it stands only zwift works in this scenario (as far as I can tell) As such there is no competition yet for me.