EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head supermojo 105 Any opinions?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head supermojo 105 Any opinions?

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 

Im looking for a wider ski for powder (skiing 02 rossignol bandit 193's right now). About my skiing, im an upper advanced skier thats going to come close to 50 days this year and have had more days in powder or skied out powder than on groomers this year (its been amazing). Anyway my powder skiing has finally increased to a level where I know I can do it on my 69 waist 170's but id really prefer to do it on a wider platform where I can pick up some speed and ride on top instead of way down in the powder. I found the supermojos on levelnine for 270 bucks and got offered some salomon racing bindings for free from an ex racer that I work with at the ski hill (not sure about the binding model). If I dont take the free bindings I will probably mount them up with a touring binding. I would also like to play in the park with them a bit more than I do with my bandits and 170's. Has anyone skied this ski or do you have any opinions of durability power ect?

post #2 of 17

So, you are have reached the "level where you can ski pow with 69 waist skis" and have decided to choose the second shittiest,heaviest pow ski ever invented,supermojo105 (the only ski being worse in pow,its cousing,the im103)  to ski pow with? And mount it with touring binding to play in the park?

 

 

Wtf? 

 

Why dont you get spatulas with FKS18s and trekkers?

post #3 of 17

Hi, phil.

 

Unlike Meathelmet, I really liked the 105 as a powder ski.  I skied the blue/white one as my "powder" ski for a full winter here at Jackson Hole three seasons ago (the winter we got 603" of snow!).  I thought it was a really nice ski that was fairly easy-going in trees and tight spaces but could still arc great big, fast turns when you got out in the open.

 

My one question for you would be your weight.  That deal at Levelnine is on the 191 length, which is not only a reasonably big ski for playing in the park but also a bit heavy (and unnecessary) as a touring ski.  Unless you weigh 200# or more, I would steer you toward the 181 length.

 

And Meathelmet, I used the old im103 as my powder ski on this Alaska heli trip and I thought it was superb.  So there! 

post #4 of 17

I tried a couple of skis wider than 100mm and the Supermojo 105's were my favorite.  They aren't so much a powder ski as an all-mountain ski that's wide and soft enough to be good in powder.

 

They have a round flex, are medium stiff, and carve pretty well for a 105mm of medium stiffness.  I'm 160 lbs. and can make the 180cm version steer quick turns in the trees, but they also straight-line well.  They certainly aren't heavy, except for AT purposes.

 

I find the turned up tail useless, but also harmless.

 

And needless to say, I think Meathelmet is well-named.

post #5 of 17

Phil -

 

I also have a pair of the white/blue (2008?) Super Mojo 105's in a 181cm length.  They have traditional camber.  I'm 5' 9.5" & 185# and somewhere in the advanced skier spectrum.  I ski in the Pacific Northwest, where our snow is heavier in water content than in Utah/Colorado/Wyoming.

 

Skied my Super Mojo 105 twice this last week and really enjoyed the ski.  IMHO, they are a real nice "inbounds resort powder" ski.  That is, they float and ski nicely in powder.  And, they are stiff enough to blast through cut up powder, which seems to happen by the afternoon on any powder day at any ski resort I've ever been at.

 

The 105's are a damp ski and work well in the heavy crud that we have here in the PNW.

 

A similar ski that I've demoed a couple of times before buying my 105's was the 2006/2007 Volkl Gotama.  While the softer Gotama is probably the better powder ski than the 105's, as soon as the powder starts to get cut up and tracked out, I couldn't wait to get rid of the Gotamas and go with a stiffer ski.  Consequently, for me, the 105's are more versatile (resort) ski than the Gotama.

 

FYI - there is a 102 width version of the Super Mojo, too.  Supposedly those are an extremely stiff ski for super human skiers.  Perhaps the 102 is the ski MeatHead is referring to.

 

Dave

post #6 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

And Meathelmet, I used the old im103 as my powder ski on this Alaska heli trip and I thought it was superb.  So there! 



im103 superb? Sure as hell it is. Have been my charging ski for the last 5 seasons. Nothing beats it when going mach schnell over ice,boulders and infants.

im103 as a pow ski? Well, a bit better than a 2x4. Only a bit. The term of "bottom feeder" has been started by im103s... 

Stiffness & low tip makes it dig in blower.  Ok,ok: the ski is ok in denser pow or when you the ski to 6th gear. 

 

Perfect charger & comp ski but for pow there is much better skis.


Quote:
Originally Posted by crudmaster View Post

I tried a couple of skis wider than 100mm and the Supermojo 105's were my favorite. 


You havent skied many skis then lately?  The mojos were Meh 5 years ago and the present 100mm+ skis blow out them from water in 

almost every single aspect. There is absolutely no point of paying 270$ for a shitty ski wich would be under the par in park,slopes and backcountry. Go to TGRs gear swap and score a pair of relevant, 1-2 season old sticks for the same price. 

So dont be dumb,dont buy crap skis when you can get much,much better ones for the same price.


 

post #7 of 17
Thread Starter 

Meathelmet:

I will be using the ski as a park ski/ all mountain ski if i mount fixed bindings and a touring ski if i mount touring bindings. Sounds like this one is too heavy to play in the park so im going to look for another ski that will work. After skiing 193's for two years im ready to swap them for something a bit shorter (180ish). Oh and Bob im a big guy at 210lbs 

Anyone have opinions on Icelantic nomads?

post #8 of 17

Phil -

 

If you want an opinion on the Icelantic Nomads, then you'll need to start a new thread.  Given the small number of hits this thread has received, not many people would be aware that you're interested in an opinion on the Icelantics. 

 

I just measured my 105's with a tape measurer and directly from tip to tail they're 179cm (but labelled 181cm).  I don't feel the least bit overwhelmed by the length of the ski.

 

Another place besides www.levelninesports.com to get the Super Mojos is www.skiuniverse.com (see the 2010 Head Joe, which is the same ski with a new name & graphics).

 

Dave

post #9 of 17

Snowyphil - I've been tempted by the LevelNine deal  on Mojo 105's too.  My buddy just went heli-skiing at Wasatch Powderbirds last week and the guide was using Mojo 105's.  Hmmm. 

post #10 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDog View Post

Snowyphil - I've been tempted by the LevelNine deal  on Mojo 105's too.  My buddy just went heli-skiing at Wasatch Powderbirds last week and the guide was using Mojo 105's.  Hmmm. 


Do it, SD.  You'll never regret it.

 

Sometime tomorrow I'll post a couple of shots of a friend of mine skiing his 105's in our 22" of new snow today.  Of course, you won't see the skis, just him smiling.  wink.gif

 

post #11 of 17

I'll go with Bob here. The 105 is a nice solid, fairly old-school blaster that will hold up nicely in everything from chopped pow to groomers. Damp and smooth, likes speed, can turn. Well constructed and will grow with you. Not for bottomless powder, but how often do you ski that? Also not for ice, but just stay away. Have never hear about it being used for park, but if you're a big guy, might work once in a while; could see it more for backcountry air. Hasn't changed significantly in a long long time, for good reason. And it's a superb deal. 103 is apparently a different animal. Bob is good enough to ski it anywhere, would not recommend same for you. 

post #12 of 17

Two different friends of mine skiing their 105's yesterday at Jackson Hole:

 

IMG_6457.jpg

 

IMG_6385.jpg

 

IMG_6497.jpg

 

IMG_6553.jpg

 

IMG_6424.jpg

 

How could you possibly NOT want a ski that could do THAT for you??? biggrin.gif

 

And one shot with the base poking out just to confirm that they are, indeed, Heads:

 

IMG_6452.jpg

post #13 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post

Two different friends of mine skiing their 105's yesterday at Jackson Hole:

How could you possibly NOT want a ski that could do THAT for you??? biggrin.gif

And one shot with the base poking out just to confirm that they are, indeed, Heads:

 



You think it was the skis do ya ?  wink.gif

post #14 of 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post





You think it was the skis do ya ?  wink.gif

 

Pretty darned certain.  

 

Those two guys could barely make parallel turns on a green groomer back when they were skiing on Rossitomicblizzokls.
 

 

post #15 of 17

A Mojo 105 trip report was . . . unexpected.  My birthday is coming up, and at my age I buy most of my own presents anyway.  You're going to get me in trouble, Bob.  I could probably have them in time for the April 2nd/3rd closing weekend at Jackson.

post #16 of 17

Hey there, I think i might have something to add. also, excuse the typos: vicious hangover.... anyhow:

 

so i just bought a pair of the head joe 105 (my understandign is they're exactly the same as supermojo 105's, so i think this might still be pretty germane to the topic at hand) to add to my quiver... i was looking for a charger ski that would cut through anything and blast down gnarly terrain fast and aggressively. i am a big guy, 6'4" and 200 pounds, and i've been skiing for 24 years (since i was 3). i have a hard-charging style, a result of being a racer for a while when i was younger until i got bored and ventured further off piste, but i still like some level of responsiveness because i always take great care trying to have some modicum of style while i ski. for years i skied on a pair of TANKS - blizzard titans from 01/02 that were 193 and would just blast everything in their path and stomp huge hucks like nobody's business: as a result they made me a much better skier since i had to work a little harder, which i can say is a slightly similar situation to these guys... you might not ski them, they might ski you if you don't slap them around a bit (but they're still more forgiving than the aforementioned blizzards)... i'm based on the west coast (california), and my home resorts are Squaw Valley since i was just a little tyke and then kirkwood more recently because of their more reasonable prices but equally impressive terrain (and great snowbase). i mounted the heads with 4frnt deadbolt 18's, and i have to say: HOT DAMN. these skis tear it up. i hiked the palisades/granite chief peak (squaw) just recently on a not so great snow day and they handled my borderline reckless beelines with ease. they do well on crud and all kinds of ski conditions... of course they're not the ideal powder ski especially if you're charging terrain that is not super steep (i have a pair of surface boronowski new lifes 194 for that purpose) and are not overwhelmingly responsive or playful (i have a pair of surface 183 watch life's for that purpose), but i did take them to Colorado recently and they are by no means clunkers in the deep stuff... honestly, if you want fast, aggressive, versatile, and still respectable powder skis (the steeper the slope the better), then these guys are pretty damn sick. and the price... whooooo, hot damn: i found a pair for 240 bucks. i mean, that's a truly great deal. and i love the graphics. those are just my two cents. my younger brother who has the same style i do switched his armada ANT's (191's) with me for a few days (same boot size) and we came to the joint conclusion that they're similar, but the Head's are a little more responsive. 

 

hope that helps! no i need some goddamn aspirin and maybe another beer to destroy this hangover...

post #17 of 17

i just noticed that you also wrote you wanted some park capabilities out of them: my guess is that the next shorter length after 191 (183? i think... not sure) should work fine, because for being as badass as they are on the steeps, they are not terribly heavy, which is pretty impressive... i would just pay attention to what bindings you mount on them and try to keep them light. 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head supermojo 105 Any opinions?