>>1910685>alloyalloy would be the cheapest option, its much easier to manufacture
however one downside is that alloy does not tolerate being flexed, to avoid Fatigue Fracture modern alloy frames are made very rigid.
of note is that while alloy is stronger than steel by weight, it is weaker by bulk, so the parts have to be made thick or with a large diameter / second moment of area.
not that this matters much, as all modern designs favour bulk regardless of material.
>Carbonits cost comes from the work required to form complex shapes, and to make sure that the shapes are compacted and cured fully with no voids in between the layers.
this problem mainly effects the areas that on older bikes were lugged, especially the bottom bracket,
very early carbon fibre bikes had metallic lugs onto which simple carbon tubes are bonded.
for flexibility in carbon the lay-up is most important,
each layer of carbon only works in tension, other layers are held in place by epoxy and their differing alinement of fibres prevents any one layer from becoming overly compressed.
on the high end and at great labour cost carbon can be layered such that the frame can be made to resist twisting but allow vertical compliance,
so when you sprint the bike does not flex but if you hit a bump on the road its not such a big jolt.
>>1910688personally I would go for the endurance fit, I figure the effort of being uncomfortable is better spent by pedalling a little harder and breathing a bit deeper.
the same also apply's to vibration, sure a very stiff frame will respond directly to your inputs, but your body will have to absorb all the vibration from the road surface.
trivial tho it may seem the body uses muscular energy to resist vibration, and this fatigue builds up over time.
