Dynastar saga (Part 3)

The aging RG10 was replaced in 68-69 by the S430, and what’s notable is that the model name was the factory’s phone number (430 in Sallanches; automatic dialing had not yet reached Haute-Savoie). Later on, it was paired up with a new giant slalom counterpart replacing the MV2, that kept up with current available technology but retained the omega rib core. The early seventies saw Dynastar’s successful introduction of the Omeglass, a lightweight slalom ski, using a fiberglass “omega” rib that had become the company’s technical DNA and used acrylic foam as partial filler. Light skis would be an area where the brand would somehow create a niche for itself, even though many argued that extreme lightness wasn’t always a desirable attribute in an alpine ski; this feature was probably more appropriate with the “Altiplume,” a lightweight mountaineering ski. This time also ushered a long period during which Dynastar slid from meaningful technical innovation into what could be called “marketing gimmicks.” The highly successful Omesoft model would follow in 78-79 and popularize the concept of “soft, easy skis” with a massive tip protector billed as vibration-reducing device that would pave the way for Dynastar’s introduction in 1984 of its “Contact System,” a protruding red heart-shaped stabilizer placed on the ski tip to counter Rossignol VAS system. This would be compared to the Jarvik 7 artificial heart by those who mocked the contraption; the “Airflow” (an elaborate hole surrounded by a molded insert in the ski tip supposed to “stabilize” the ski at high speeds) would follow and confirm Dynastar’s penchant for questionable features. The “Assymetric” concept, that would give users two pairs of skis for the price of one by simply switching skis from right to left, followed and it became clear that desperate quest for differentiation was clearly fueled by a heightened competition between Rossignol and Dynastar. The later didn’t want to play second fiddle to the first and lose its separate leadership, R&D funding, distribution and ultimately, its independence. Since its foundation, Dynastar managed to move its annual production from less than 10,000 pairs to more than 400,000 pairs in 2003 before falling today to around 200,000 pairs. It remains debatable whether this sibling rivalry and duplication of expenditures between Dynastar and Rossignol had been beneficial for the whole group as opposed to a consolidation that would have shared development, manufacturing, racing programs and distribution costs and also forced early a differentiated positioning of two brands on all world markets, move that would only be initiated to a limited extend just a few years ago after the entire ski market began to collapse. As the cards may soon be re-distributed, it remains to be seen which position, if any, the brand with the moustache will be able to fill; will it remain a “Legend” as its current flagship model or will it be history? If you’ve followed that story and have any opinions or details of interest, please send me your comments!