Well, I used the example of a throwing device that allows you to accelerate your arm more quickly than a rigid one because it decreases peak torque, which is sometimes beyond the ability of human muscles. So we're back to why people buy and like oval chainrings - distributes peak torque across a greater amount of the pedal stroke. Since people aren't electric motors, "energy is not energy", it is whatever we can put out in different body positions. Again - no one makes oval gears to address the limitations of electric motors.

The second part you are implying is a problem is the fact that I'm suggesting frame flex would be a good way to do that. And that's probably because flex is a dirty word in cycling. But in engineering it is well understood that springs are some of the most efficient devices for storing and returning energy. Steel, ti and carbon frames are composed of excellent spring materials, and the fact that all of this flexing can happen without the addition of extra linkages, bearings and hardware means that there aren't additional energy losses due to friction.

And as I mentioned, bike flex provides the same sort of pedaling smoothing as oval chainrings, but has perfect feedback since it isn't prescheduled like a machined oval chainring is. Bike flex happens instantaneously and at exactly the same level as the pedaling input force.

So while you are trying to make it sound stupid that very efficient spring flex might be better than less efficient pedaling motion - that is exactly what I'm saying. Maybe trying to get a person to emulate a motor on rigid mount is a little stupid.