Interesting shock absorber analogy. Wouldn't the amplitude of rebound in the no shock/spring scenario be greater (rebound above static height)? Does a slalom ski rebound beyond its static state(?). The core construction material/technique being the shock absorber?
The thread is not posed to challenge the Goode ad, but regarding flex, standardized measurable findings are derived. Whereas with “rebound”, it appears this is a quantity (or just a quality noted) empirically derived?
For slalom skis of identical shape (thickness, profile, length, etc., etc. ), given conventional core vs a carbon ribbed core, can there really be a demonstrably quicker rebound in a ski with a softer lay-up? Same goes for vaulting poles (same conditions of shape equivalence), is “rebound” quantified with a standard measuring technique?
If construction techniques (as in the carbon core) permit a ski to have a thinner profile with a lay-up providing favorable flex (keeping it thin and not too soft); compared to a “thicker” ski with identical flex; it’s difficult to perceive the “rebound” of either being appreciably different, if measurable. Though it is conceivable that the “thinner” ski (in this comparison) would have a greater flex “displacement” relative to its thickness; call it a displacement/thickness ratio (the thinner and thicker skis having the same flex displacement). So a “thinner” ski, even if rebound is no quicker than the “thicker” ski, might be felt (skiing) to actually do so given a greater displacement/thickness ratio.
Interesting stuff, and like most aspects of choosing a ski, favorable qualities all depend upon what seems to function best below the skier’s feet. Curious though as to what has been used to define and determine “rebound” as it has been applied to a slalom ski.