New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extension.

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

Nothing has really changed in the hundred plus posts since I wrote:
...

---------------------------------
Quite true, and I really don't expect much to change in the near future from academic research.

What I do think will happen is that the manufacturers of of the new generation power meters (that measure left-right pedal power and force vectors) will start to provide some detailed information about how those features of the PMs can be used to improve performance. I expect it to be mostly anecdotal, or perhaps based on measurements of name-brand PROs that could be used as 'guidance' or 'suggestions' about what type of pedaling technique they use.

I did a brief google-search for info from mfg's about using their new PMs, and didn't find anything more than typical ideas about having L/R power output 'balanced', and advocating a circular-pedaling style. The info that I did find was mostly from Pioneer and iNewton.

With a large company such as Pioneer selling these PMs, I expect they will soon see a need to provide some specific info about how their products can be used.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Having the skills to make a good power meter does not mean they also have the requisite bio-mechanical understanding of whether the data is useful or how it may be used effectively. Most of the quality information about use of power meter data has not emerged from producers of power meters.

I agree. Most of these manufacturers really don't have a clue as to what is going on. In part because I am unawere of any "quality information" emerging from anywhere about use of 1st gen power meters. Lots of guessing as to how to use but nothing documented that such use is of any more value than what was available before. If you know of any please point me to it.

One really helpful use has been to demonstrate your product doesn't improve cycling performance. That's been consistently shown with power measurement.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

In uncoupled cranks there is no counterbalance. Are you to dense to understand that? Stop using that term in relation to uncoupled cranks.

Sure there is. The weight of each leg counterbalances the other. The whole purpose of the counterbalanced one-legged set up is to try to reproduce the counterbalanced weight of the other leg present in normal bilateral pedaling.

You must always apply positive force on the pedals. That is totally different from coupled cranks. That is totally different from a counter weighted single crank. Your comment about keeping the crank moving isn't what is happening. You mean the bike continues to move since the other leg is still applying force and the upstroke leg only needs to be a positive force, not a high force to drive the bike forward.

While one doesn't have to always apply positive force on the pedals with the counterweighted single crank on the upstroke my guess is that this individual, who had seven years of pedaling one-legged which requires positive force around the entire circle, did anyhow even though he didn't have to. If the power and cadence was kept the same between the two trials (which I assume it was if the researcher hope for his data to mean anything regarding efficiency) then the counterweight only forced the rider to pull up with less force (because it required him to push harder to get the counterweight up and all the instantaneous powers around the circle need to average the same if the power is the same). Of course, we don't know what he did because the researcher didn't bother to measure pedal forces but my guess is that someone who has trained himself to pull up doesn't suddenly stop because the bike now allows him to. That is the whole idea behind PC training. We hope that the rider trains enough that when they go back to regular cranks their pedaling style doesn't change even though it would be possible for them to do so.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

Nothing has really changed in the hundred plus posts since I wrote:
...

---------------------------------
Quite true, and I really don't expect much to change in the near future from academic research.

What I do think will happen is that the manufacturers of of the new generation power meters (that measure left-right pedal power and force vectors) will start to provide some detailed information about how those features of the PMs can be used to improve performance. I expect it to be mostly anecdotal, or perhaps based on measurements of name-brand PROs that could be used as 'guidance' or 'suggestions' about what type of pedaling technique they use.

I did a brief google-search for info from mfg's about using their new PMs, and didn't find anything more than typical ideas about having L/R power output 'balanced', and advocating a circular-pedaling style. The info that I did find was mostly from Pioneer and iNewton.

With a large company such as Pioneer selling these PMs, I expect they will soon see a need to provide some specific info about how their products can be used.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Having the skills to make a good power meter does not mean they also have the requisite bio-mechanical understanding of whether the data is useful or how it may be used effectively. Most of the quality information about use of power meter data has not emerged from producers of power meters.

I agree. Most of these manufacturers really don't have a clue as to what is going on. In part because I am unawere of any "quality information" emerging from anywhere about use of 1st gen power meters. Lots of guessing as to how to use but nothing documented that such use is of any more value than what was available before. If you know of any please point me to it.

One really helpful use has been to demonstrate your product doesn't improve cycling performance. That's been consistently shown with power measurement.

Except to those who own both. LOL

 

[JamesCun]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

In uncoupled cranks there is no counterbalance. Are you to dense to understand that? Stop using that term in relation to uncoupled cranks.

Sure there is. The weight of each leg counterbalances the other. The whole purpose of the counterbalanced one-legged set up is to try to reproduce the counterbalanced weight of the other leg present in normal bilateral pedaling.

You must always apply positive force on the pedals. That is totally different from coupled cranks. That is totally different from a counter weighted single crank. Your comment about keeping the crank moving isn't what is happening. You mean the bike continues to move since the other leg is still applying force and the upstroke leg only needs to be a positive force, not a high force to drive the bike forward.

While one doesn't have to always apply positive force on the pedals with the counterweighted single crank on the upstroke my guess is that this individual, who had seven years of pedaling one-legged which requires positive force around the entire circle, did anyhow even though he didn't have to. If the power and cadence was kept the same between the two trials (which I assume it was if the researcher hope for his data to mean anything regarding efficiency) then the counterweight only forced the rider to pull up with less force (because it required him to push harder to get the counterweight up and all the instantaneous powers around the circle need to average the same if the power is the same). Of course, we don't know what he did because the researcher didn't bother to measure pedal forces but my guess is that someone who has trained himself to pull up doesn't suddenly stop because the bike now allows him to. That is the whole idea behind PC training. We hope that the rider trains enough that when they go back to regular cranks their pedaling style doesn't change even though it would be possible for them to do so.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no counterweight with uncoupled cranks, end of story. The fact that you continue to argue that makes me fully understand why your are so loved in the online community. The point of the counterweight in this experiment is to allow the rider to push down more and pull up less. That is the only option available if we are talking about a fixed power output.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

Nothing has really changed in the hundred plus posts since I wrote:
...

---------------------------------
Quite true, and I really don't expect much to change in the near future from academic research.

What I do think will happen is that the manufacturers of of the new generation power meters (that measure left-right pedal power and force vectors) will start to provide some detailed information about how those features of the PMs can be used to improve performance. I expect it to be mostly anecdotal, or perhaps based on measurements of name-brand PROs that could be used as 'guidance' or 'suggestions' about what type of pedaling technique they use.

I did a brief google-search for info from mfg's about using their new PMs, and didn't find anything more than typical ideas about having L/R power output 'balanced', and advocating a circular-pedaling style. The info that I did find was mostly from Pioneer and iNewton.

With a large company such as Pioneer selling these PMs, I expect they will soon see a need to provide some specific info about how their products can be used.

I have crunched some data for people with Pioneer, nothing of major importance coming from seeing the application of power around the pedal stroke. Funny that that matches the research on pedalling when one tries something different to mashing. You can't generate more power somewhere around the stroke without compromise in other areas. Enough research to show that trying to apply power on the upstroke is inefficient.

Compared to the rest of the power data which tells me if a rider is progressing relative to their goals, is progressing relative to the time of the season and whether they are overtraining or not. Then there is real coaching like yesterday videoing a group of juniors after telling them they could sprint flat out for around 150m. Video showed quite nicely, sprint too far out and they noticeably slowed down and if they did it from 150m they carried their speed to the line. Dr Jim Martin could model this for me but for 12-16 year olds the video did as good a job.

But continue to keep beating that dead horse. At least Frank is getting paid, although $220,000 a year in sales equals a really crappy business.

 

[backdoor]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

In uncoupled cranks there is no counterbalance. Are you to dense to understand that? Stop using that term in relation to uncoupled cranks.

Sure there is. The weight of each leg counterbalances the other. The whole purpose of the counterbalanced one-legged set up is to try to reproduce the counterbalanced weight of the other leg present in normal bilateral pedaling.

You must always apply positive force on the pedals. That is totally different from coupled cranks. That is totally different from a counter weighted single crank. Your comment about keeping the crank moving isn't what is happening. You mean the bike continues to move since the other leg is still applying force and the upstroke leg only needs to be a positive force, not a high force to drive the bike forward.

While one doesn't have to always apply positive force on the pedals with the counterweighted single crank on the upstroke my guess is that this individual, who had seven years of pedaling one-legged which requires positive force around the entire circle, did anyhow even though he didn't have to. If the power and cadence was kept the same between the two trials (which I assume it was if the researcher hope for his data to mean anything regarding efficiency) then the counterweight only forced the rider to pull up with less force (because it required him to push harder to get the counterweight up and all the instantaneous powers around the circle need to average the same if the power is the same). Of course, we don't know what he did because the researcher didn't bother to measure pedal forces but my guess is that someone who has trained himself to pull up doesn't suddenly stop because the bike now allows him to. That is the whole idea behind PC training. We hope that the rider trains enough that when they go back to regular cranks their pedaling style doesn't change even though it would be possible for them to do so.

There is a difference, unlike this one legged man's pulling up, when a two legged man pulls up there will be a loss of power in his other leg's down stroke. That's why PC'ers revert back to their old pedalling style.

 

[backdoor]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

You can't generate more power somewhere around the stroke without compromise in other areas.

You can if the change occurs in the same 180 degrees where your peak force is being applied.

 

[acoggan]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

Nothing has really changed in the hundred plus posts since I wrote:
...

---------------------------------
Quite true, and I really don't expect much to change in the near future from academic research.

What I do think will happen is that the manufacturers of of the new generation power meters (that measure left-right pedal power and force vectors) will start to provide some detailed information about how those features of the PMs can be used to improve performance.

I doubt it. The only reason manufacturers are building such devices in the first place is that they hope to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and make money by taking advantage of one of the oldest myths in cycling. They have no more insight into the relevance of such information than anyone else, and in fact are (wisely) looking outward to academic experts to try to make sense of/figure out how to utilize it.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

...
I doubt it. The only reason manufacturers are building such devices in the first place is that they hope to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and make money by taking advantage of one of the oldest myths in cycling. They have no more insight into the relevance of such information than anyone else, and in fact are (wisely) looking outward to academic experts to try to make sense of/figure out how to utilize it.

Yes it will be interesting to see how use of the new PMs contributes to academic research.
I realize that the technology has been available for many years, but the price-point of the new PMs makes them available to many more people. So I think we'll be seeing more interest and activity in the analysis of 'pedaling technique' - especially due to the marketing claims made about the new PMs and their usefulness.

...
I have crunched some data for people with Pioneer, nothing of major importance coming from seeing the application of power around the pedal stroke. Funny that that matches the research on pedalling when one tries something different to mashing. You can't generate more power somewhere around the stroke without compromise in other areas. Enough research to show that trying to apply power on the upstroke is inefficient.
...

That's good that Pioneer is contacting professionals for analysis.
I'm sure they would also appreciate (and pay for) consultation about possible test methods that might show advantages to using their product.

An item that interests me is whether (and how) the ratio of downstroke/upstroke power changes during a 40K TT event.
Edit: yes I realize that using upstroke 'power' might not be feasible.
Perhaps using the ratio of downstroke/upstroke 'muscle usage' or a number that is able to quantify the amount that the muscles are being used would be appropriate. I doubt that it's a major problem (for a physiology professional) to devise a measurement that would yield a meaningful ratio.
End Edit

Specifically regarding if/how the usage amount of the related muscle groups change due to fatigue during the course of the event. If there are significant changes in the ratio, it might indicate that the muscles fatigue at different rates.
If would also be interesting to compare the ratio among riders of different performance levels - e.g. top ranked TT specialists, sprinters, climbers, etc.

Another 'guess' - someone is going to write the book "How to Train with the New PMs".

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

In uncoupled cranks there is no counterbalance. Are you to dense to understand that? Stop using that term in relation to uncoupled cranks.

Sure there is. The weight of each leg counterbalances the other. The whole purpose of the counterbalanced one-legged set up is to try to reproduce the counterbalanced weight of the other leg present in normal bilateral pedaling.

You must always apply positive force on the pedals. That is totally different from coupled cranks. That is totally different from a counter weighted single crank. Your comment about keeping the crank moving isn't what is happening. You mean the bike continues to move since the other leg is still applying force and the upstroke leg only needs to be a positive force, not a high force to drive the bike forward.

While one doesn't have to always apply positive force on the pedals with the counterweighted single crank on the upstroke my guess is that this individual, who had seven years of pedaling one-legged which requires positive force around the entire circle, did anyhow even though he didn't have to. If the power and cadence was kept the same between the two trials (which I assume it was if the researcher hope for his data to mean anything regarding efficiency) then the counterweight only forced the rider to pull up with less force (because it required him to push harder to get the counterweight up and all the instantaneous powers around the circle need to average the same if the power is the same). Of course, we don't know what he did because the researcher didn't bother to measure pedal forces but my guess is that someone who has trained himself to pull up doesn't suddenly stop because the bike now allows him to. That is the whole idea behind PC training. We hope that the rider trains enough that when they go back to regular cranks their pedaling style doesn't change even though it would be possible for them to do so.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. There is no counterweight with uncoupled cranks, end of story. The fact that you continue to argue that makes me fully understand why your are so loved in the online community. The point of the counterweight in this experiment is to allow the rider to push down more and pull up less. That is the only option available if we are talking about a fixed power output.

LOL. Sure there is. The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared. The whole purpose of this researcher adding a counterweight was to see if this better mimicked bilateral pedaling. The problem is, of course, that better mimicking bilateral pedaling on the upstroke make it less like bilateral pedaling on the downstroke. If only the researcher had measured pedal forces so this would be clear to you.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

Nothing has really changed in the hundred plus posts since I wrote:
...

---------------------------------
Quite true, and I really don't expect much to change in the near future from academic research.

What I do think will happen is that the manufacturers of of the new generation power meters (that measure left-right pedal power and force vectors) will start to provide some detailed information about how those features of the PMs can be used to improve performance.

I doubt it. The only reason manufacturers are building such devices in the first place is that they hope to differentiate themselves in the marketplace and make money by taking advantage of one of the oldest myths in cycling. They have no more insight into the relevance of such information than anyone else, and in fact are (wisely) looking outward to academic experts to try to make sense of/figure out how to utilize it.

Perhaps you could direct us to some data that shows that using first generation power meters has an affect on outcome more than can be done without them? It would appear to me, based upon the scientific data, that the biggest myth in cycling is that using a PM makes a difference. You wrote the book, where is the data?

 

[acoggan]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

 

[acoggan]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

Another 'guess' - someone is going to write the book "How to Train with the New PMs".

"Advanced Training and Racing with a Power Meter" has already been pitched to a publisher. It would cover a lot more than just newer powermeters, though.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

...
"Advanced Training and Racing with a Power Meter" has already been pitched to a publisher. It would cover a lot more than just newer powermeters, though.

Good 'teaser' - will you give any 'pre-pub' insights about the general conclusions regarding use of 'new' PMs compared to the older ones?
e.g. is there a section that discusses any benefits from the data displayed by the new PMs compared to old?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[PhitBoy]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

This aspect of the "discussion" gives me internal conflict.
Snarky response: "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect" (Princess Bride).
Helpful response: Perhaps Frank could show us a free body diagram to help us understand what he's thinking.

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

Another 'guess' -

I suspect that 'counterweight' is the wrong term to be using - and that it is needlessly hurting the discussion.
When uncoupled cranks are acting 'uncoupled' one side can't work as what is commonly thought of as a counterweight - such as the opposite seats of a teeter-toter.

Edit: in the following description I am assuming a 'fixed gear' (e.g. track bike) on the rear wheel, and that the pedaling effort is being done to make the bike go forward.
End Edit

With uncoupled cranks the motion of one side only directly affects the other side when the speed of rotation of both cranks is the same as the 'chain speed' (at which time the cranks are coupled). If one of the cranks is slower (than the 'chain speed'), the torque on the chain from the 'slower' crank becomes zero. And when the torque is zero, the only force needed to move the slower crank is related to the mass of the slower crank arm and the foot / leg of the cyclist.

So when that zero torque situation occurs, what DOES disappear is any force on the slower crank from the opposite faster moving crank/leg.
The slower moving crank is not impeding (or being impeded by) the faster side. And the faster crank is not 'helping move' the slower crank.

Also when the zero torque situation occurs, the effective resistance on the faster crank INCREASES because
ALL of the resistance (from the chain) is directed to the faster moving crank, and is nolonger being shared by both cranks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[CoachFergie]

Seriously Jay

Unless your just teasing Frank, making him think he has a customer on the hook, just stop. You're not adding anything to the discussion.

Go ride your bike, discover that pedalling doesn't require all this much thought. Perhaps when you have done it for 20 or so years and coached it you will realise that mashing is the way to go. Just like Ed Coyle and co showed us with research in 1991.

 

[acoggan]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

"Truly, you have a dizzying intellect"

Wait till I get going!

 

[acoggan]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

...
"Advanced Training and Racing with a Power Meter" has already been pitched to a publisher. It would cover a lot more than just newer powermeters, though.

Good 'teaser' - will you give any 'pre-pub' insights about the general conclusions regarding use of 'new' PMs compared to the older ones?
e.g. is there a section that discusses any benefits from the data displayed by the new PMs compared to old?

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

"Training and Racing with a Power Meter" editions 1 and 2 were successful enough that a detailed outline hasn't been needed yet.

 

[JayKosta]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

...
"Training and Racing with a Power Meter" editions 1 and 2 were successful enough that a detailed outline hasn't been needed yet.

------------------------------------------
OK, I thought it might be further along and be in some sort of 'draft' stage that you were sending to publishers.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

 

[JamesCun]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

Another 'guess' -

I suspect that 'counterweight' is the wrong term to be using - and that it is needlessly hurting the discussion.
When uncoupled cranks are acting 'uncoupled' one side can't work as what is commonly thought of as a counterweight - such as the opposite seats of a teeter-toter.

Edit: in the following description I am assuming a 'fixed gear' (e.g. track bike) on the rear wheel, and that the pedaling effort is being done to make the bike go forward.
End Edit

With uncoupled cranks the motion of one side only directly affects the other side when the speed of rotation of both cranks is the same as the 'chain speed' (at which time the cranks are coupled). If one of the cranks is slower (than the 'chain speed'), the torque on the chain from the 'slower' crank becomes zero. And when the torque is zero, the only force needed to move the slower crank is related to the mass of the slower crank arm and the foot / leg of the cyclist.

So when that zero torque situation occurs, what DOES disappear is any force on the slower crank from the opposite faster moving crank/leg.
The slower moving crank is not impeding (or being impeded by) the faster side. And the faster crank is not 'helping move' the slower crank.

Also when the zero torque situation occurs, the effective resistance on the faster crank INCREASES because
ALL of the resistance (from the chain) is directed to the faster moving crank, and is nolonger being shared by both cranks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

You are way over complicating this. Why are you talking about a slower and faster moving crank? If you claim they are 'coupled' they are moving the same speed.

And yes, counterweight is the wrong term because it isn't even remotely what is happening with uncoupled cranks. A counterweight directly balances the other side. They are connected across a fulcrum and have a direct impact on each other.

 

[CoachFergie]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

You are way over complicating this. Why are you talking about a slower and faster moving crank? If you claim they are 'coupled' they are moving the same speed.

And yes, counterweight is the wrong term because it isn't even remotely what is happening with uncoupled cranks. A counterweight directly balances the other side. They are connected across a fulcrum and have a direct impact on each other.

Nice of Jay to work his way through his mental process with us here. Bit like watching a penny drop in FRICKING SLOW MOTION. Several cycling science texts that cover this stuff really well.

Frank does the Performance Artist thing so much better as most people here obviously can see through his BS.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

Nope. In the OP that counterweight is there whether the rider is applying positive force the entire circle or not. The physics of the leg is fixed regardless of how the rider pedals and regardless of the physics of the other leg (the amputees intact leg has the same physics as an identical leg in a bilateral pedaler), didn't we already agree on that?

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

Another 'guess' -

I suspect that 'counterweight' is the wrong term to be using - and that it is needlessly hurting the discussion.
When uncoupled cranks are acting 'uncoupled' one side can't work as what is commonly thought of as a counterweight - such as the opposite seats of a teeter-toter.

Edit: in the following description I am assuming a 'fixed gear' (e.g. track bike) on the rear wheel, and that the pedaling effort is being done to make the bike go forward.
End Edit

With uncoupled cranks the motion of one side only directly affects the other side when the speed of rotation of both cranks is the same as the 'chain speed' (at which time the cranks are coupled). If one of the cranks is slower (than the 'chain speed'), the torque on the chain from the 'slower' crank becomes zero. And when the torque is zero, the only force needed to move the slower crank is related to the mass of the slower crank arm and the foot / leg of the cyclist.

So when that zero torque situation occurs, what DOES disappear is any force on the slower crank from the opposite faster moving crank/leg.
The slower moving crank is not impeding (or being impeded by) the faster side. And the faster crank is not 'helping move' the slower crank.

Also when the zero torque situation occurs, the effective resistance on the faster crank INCREASES because
ALL of the resistance (from the chain) is directed to the faster moving crank, and is nolonger being shared by both cranks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Actually, the fixie/single speed comparison is a good analogy to the coupled/uncoupled counterweight example. When pedaling smoothly one cannot tell whether one is on a fixie or a single speed because they feel exactly the same even though one is coupled to the momentum of the bike and the other is not because of the free wheel. It is only when one tries to "coast" that the difference between these two systems become manifest. Until then they behave the same even though they are not.

 

[FrankDay]

Re: New study shows leg flexion less efficient than extensio

The fact that the weight of the counterweight is not transferred does not mean the counterweight somehow disappeared..

Uh, yeah, it does, at least as far as the physics of the contralateral leg are concerned.

Another 'guess' -

I suspect that 'counterweight' is the wrong term to be using - and that it is needlessly hurting the discussion.
When uncoupled cranks are acting 'uncoupled' one side can't work as what is commonly thought of as a counterweight - such as the opposite seats of a teeter-toter.

Edit: in the following description I am assuming a 'fixed gear' (e.g. track bike) on the rear wheel, and that the pedaling effort is being done to make the bike go forward.
End Edit

With uncoupled cranks the motion of one side only directly affects the other side when the speed of rotation of both cranks is the same as the 'chain speed' (at which time the cranks are coupled). If one of the cranks is slower (than the 'chain speed'), the torque on the chain from the 'slower' crank becomes zero. And when the torque is zero, the only force needed to move the slower crank is related to the mass of the slower crank arm and the foot / leg of the cyclist.

So when that zero torque situation occurs, what DOES disappear is any force on the slower crank from the opposite faster moving crank/leg.
The slower moving crank is not impeding (or being impeded by) the faster side. And the faster crank is not 'helping move' the slower crank.

Also when the zero torque situation occurs, the effective resistance on the faster crank INCREASES because
ALL of the resistance (from the chain) is directed to the faster moving crank, and is nolonger being shared by both cranks.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

You are way over complicating this. Why are you talking about a slower and faster moving crank? If you claim they are 'coupled' they are moving the same speed.

And, they are moving at the same speed when they are uncoupled unless there is a break in technique.

And yes, counterweight is the wrong term because it isn't even remotely what is happening with uncoupled cranks. A counterweight directly balances the other side. They are connected across a fulcrum and have a direct impact on each other.

No, a counterweight does not have to exactly balance the other side. It is simply an opposing weight. The counterweight for an elevator does not exactly balance the load of the elevator because that load is variable and the counterweight is fixed. The counterweight for an elevator is sized to make moving the elevator up and down more efficient under the average expected load. It seems the counterweight when pedaling does something similar wouldn't one say from the OP?