Do manufacturers screw you on price point if you want tubeless?

zen_ wrote:
1. Bike manufactures and shops don't have much margin on lower end bikes, so every dollar saved on cost matters. 

2. Although some (including myself) do ride our lower end bikes on gravel a lot, I would venture to say that most of them spend their life on bike paths and such, or frankly in the garage 360 days a year. That demographic doesn't care about tubeless, and tubes are frankly better for those scenarios. 

3. To get setup tubeless correctly after sale, the LBS probably needs to start with tubes when they they initially setup the bike, then convert to tubeless after sale so the sealant is fresh. If the bike were to sit there for 9-12 months before sale, do you want old, dry sealant? The point is it takes the LBS more time and material cost to do it right. 

4. Why even squabble over the OE tires to begin with? Sure, it's nice to get some that are not throwaways, but you probably want good tires that fit your needs for width, tread, puncture resistance, etc. Rims I probably agree with you though; there is no reason to be selling proper gravel bikes without tubeless ready rims, even if most can be made such at minimal cost. 

Cobarchie wrote:

daustin...

Good observation. I'm not exposed to the entire world of bicycling, but, in my limited experience with the population I am exposed to, I've only run across one person in almost two years that still uses tubes in any of their tires. I mostly ride mountain bikes though, so that may or may not make a difference in the discussion. I don't know.

I do know that in the time since I've swapped some of my bikes to tubeless, I haven't had one flat or routinely low tire on those bikes, and I haven't had to bother with patches on tubes either. I used to have to pull over and swap a tube on a 10 mile mountain bike ride at least once a month, so when I upgraded the 24 year old bike that's serving as my gravel bike to current technology by pulling the trigger on a completely new bicycle, I expected some improvements to have been made in that quarter of a century.

Tubeless tires are one of those upgrades to technology I figure should be ubiquitous by now, but what do I know? I obviously don't know everything.

If tubeless had been figured out first no one would ever switch to tubes.  There is no advantage and there is only a downside.

This does not mean it is not functional, but it is functionally obsolete.

• We've already established that clinchers and tubes are less expensive than tubeless tires. For many riders, the bottom line is...the bottom line. This is also why people who aren't planning to replace their bikes aren't likely to replace their wheels (as I won't for my road bikes).
• For many people, tubes are just simpler to deal with, as they're a technology they know and understand.
• Seating - and in some cases,  unseating - tubeless tires can be a major headache in the field, though arguably less so for gravel tires than some MTB and fat bike tires.
• Sealant can be a pain, though I haven't had any bad experiences with it personally.

I was making a philosophical argument, not a pragmatic one but I will address your rebutal point by point (and in good spirit ... no contention intended)

• Economics: Long term, tubeless cost less when set up properly.  No tubes to buy.
  
  
• Appeal to tradition.  
  
  
• Seating: Education and practice and proper use of C02 make this easy in the field.  On longer runs taking a foldable tire is just as easy to tote along as is a tube.  An issue with tossing in a tube is having to use different valves.  
  
  
• Sealant is easy to use.

I never claimed they were going away.  What I did state is if tubeless was invented first then everyone would be using it already and there would be little reason to switch.  This actually addresses the bulk of your argument, if you think about it from a philosophical, and empirical perspective.

(Insert applicable friendly emoticon here)

Cobarchie wrote:To add to my above post, sadly, service after the sale isn't something some bike shops want to concern themselves with.

Koyote wrote:

Hogwash.

Seems like you had one legitimate issue, which is that the hubs might have needed lube or adjustment - and you refused to let them do it gratis.

You don't have a single other issue that is the shop's responsibility. And if you think they should sell you upgraded wheels at a cut-rate price, and thus throw away any profit they made on the bike sale, well...They have a name for you, but they only use it after you leave and they are talking amongst themselves. 

It really seems like you spent $1500 but expected a $3000 bike.

Cobarchie wrote:To add to my above post, sadly, service after the sale isn't something some bike shops want to concern themselves with.