EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 Head Mojo 94 - I'm in LOVE!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2009 Head Mojo 94 - I'm in LOVE! - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Swing View Post
bushwacker is right...

http://www.deeluxe.com/ is the brand name. they mainly focus on snowboard boots, but after calling them i got this ski model..

rumor has it that the mold comes from raichle - seems pretty plausible to me..

anyway - i love the boot!



well, since we don't have real powder boards in our collection i have to try some. otherwise i don't know what we have to top when we come out with wider edelwisers..
I couldn't find those ski boots, am I looking at the wrong site?
post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
I couldn't find those ski boots, am I looking at the wrong site?
probably an older model..
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by spielerman View Post
I couldn't find those ski boots, am I looking at the wrong site?
http://www.deeluxe-hardboots.com/
post #34 of 45

Mojo 94 vs Watea

I have a pair of Mojo 94's that I picked up from my rep about 10 days ago. I Skied in Utah this week with my daughters, a few staff members, and Peter Keelty. I took along the new 94's and got a day on them at Alta. Other skis that day were the iM78 and the iM88. The 94 is much more like the Mojo 105 than it is like the Monster series. I was a bit disappointed in its lack of versatility. It really seems to want to carve bigger arcs than I had expected as the next generation Mojo. Nowhere near as quick as an iM88 or a Mojo 90. More powerful than either of the two. Fantastic in crud. High speed cruising in rough snow? Like butter!

Compared to the Watea 94 you have two very different skis. The Watea is very light and bright feeling for a 94. Crisp and poppy. The Mojo 94 is the opposite of that. Smooth and powerful and confident.

If anyone wants to try them, I can bring both to Sugar Bowl this Wednesday. Mojo 94 is a 180. Ill bring the Watea 94 as well. If there is interest we can add a Mojo 90, Stockli Schmidt or DP. I would love to add a Mantra to the mix but don't have one in demo. Let me know if you are interested.
post #35 of 45

Mojo 94 vs Watea 94

I have a pair of Mojo 94's that I picked up from my rep about 10 days ago. I Skied in Utah this week with Peter Keelty. Took them along and got a day on them at Alta. Other skis that day were the iM78 and the iM88. The 94 is much more like the Mojo 105 than it is like the Monster series. I was a bit disappointed in its lack of versatility. It really seems to want to carve bigger arcs than I had expected as the next generation Mojo. Nowhere near as quick as an iM88 or a Mojo 90. More powerful than either of the two. Fantastic in crud. High speed cruising in rough snow? Like butter!

Compared to the Watea 94 you have two very different skis. The Watea is very light and bright feeling for a 94. Crisp and poppy. The Mojo 94 is the opposite of that. Smooth and powerful and confident.

If anyone wants to try them, I can bring both to Sugar Bowl this Wednesday. Mojo 94 is a 180. Ill bring the Watea 94 as well. If there is interest we can add a Mojo 90, Stockli Schmidt or DP. I would love to add a Mantra to the mix but don't have one in demo.
post #36 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters View Post
The ski in the photo is the new, 2009-model, Mojo 94. It is a vertical sidewall, laminate sandwich ski. I believe (but haven't seen any specs yet) that it is almost identical in construction to the iM 82 and the iM 88. It is not a twin-tip. Edited to state that this sentence was WRONG. The Mojo 94 IS a twin-tip. Sorry for the confusion. I'm confused as to why this new model is called the *MOJO* 94 instead of the *iM* 94, as the construction and skiing characteristics seem far more similar to the Monster line than to the Mojo line. Nevertheless, I'm certain it has "Mojo" on the graphics because it's written in a funny kind of script on the backs of the skis and Max couldn't quite figure out what it said until we looked closer. At first I thought it said "Mofo".



I'll have to get more detail on the 94 as time goes by. To my eye and on my feet, this new Mojo 94 bore very little resemblance to the Mojo 90. The 94 is not a twin tip and skis much more like a wide conventional ski than like a twin. Edited to state that this sentence was WRONG. The Mojo 94 IS a twin-tip. Sorry for the confusion. Still, for me, it just seemed to do everything I wanted perfectly.



I think that because it's a little wider AND it's not a twin, Edited to state that this sentence was WRONG. The Mojo 94 IS a twin-tip. Sorry for the confusion.the effective skiing surface of the 94 would be a fair bit larger than the 90. That should translate into more float. If you use your 90's in the park, however, I'm not sure that the 94's tail is going to be as nice for you.



You know, it's so hard to describe in words the subtle differences between skis. The only SuperMojo 103 that I've skied on was the 193cm (or 191?, I can't remember). I skied it a little bit in-resort at Jackson and then for five days heli-skiing in Alaska. I dearly loved the way that ski felt when I was going fast in big, wide open spaces, but I just didn't want to go that fast in-resort all the time.

This Mojo 94, on the other hand, seemed to have all the power and precision of the 103, but in a much more manageable in-resort package. Now, part of that undoubtedly is a result of the length I was on in the 94 (180cm) versus the length I skied in the 103 (190+).

What's really interesting is that I normally tend toward longer skis, and this 180cm length for the 94 might be "short" compared to my traditional taste, but I found absolutely nothing lacking in that ski from a length perspective. I obviously didn't have a chance to try the 186cm length that will be available next season, but I'm not sure I wouldn't just get the 180 and be totally happy with it. I've been skiing the Mojo 105 in the 191cm length as my deep-snow ski this season. I've really enjoyed that ski (more than I would have admitted at the beginning of the season), but I honestly think I would prefer this new 94 in just about any condition I could think of.
Edited to state that I was WRONG. The Mojo 94 IS a twin-tip. Sorry for the confusion.
post #37 of 45
Just to be sure - the ski 2009 Head Mojo 94 are a wood core, vertical sidewall ski. Since I do not like twin tips for many reasons, I wonder if I could saw off the twin tip tail for a straight tail edge (I am not trying to highjack the thread). thanks, cmr
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlier View Post
Just to be sure - the ski 2009 Head Mojo 94 are a wood core, vertical sidewall ski. Since I do not like twin tips for many reasons, I wonder if I could saw off the twin tip tail for a straight tail edge (I am not trying to highjack the thread). thanks, cmr
why dont you man up and get some Im103 in a 193..mister I dont like twin tips.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
why dont you man up and get some Im103 in a 193..mister I dont like twin tips.
Just the 183 m103 is the most serious ski I have ever been on. I am guessing the 193 has to slay it. Is there a comparison between the 103 and the 94?
post #40 of 45
Bob, could you comment on your feelings regarding the MoJo 94 vs the Monster 88?

Thanks.
post #41 of 45
Bob Peters,

Can you tell me anything about the 07/08 RX Big Heats? I cant find out much about them other than they are burly. Looking for a real opinion. Found a new pair on a closeout.
post #42 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
Just the 183 m103 is the most serious ski I have ever been on. I am guessing the 193 has to slay it. Is there a comparison between the 103 and the 94?
My own comparison would be that the two skis are very dissimilar. The 94 was turny, easy to ski, and "relatively" soft-flexing. Really, really nice in trees and bumps and floaty enough to make skiing most any kind of deeper/softer snow a real dream. The 103 is essentially a wide-waisted Super G ski. It's got an enormous turn radius and doesn't begin to come alive until you're going about 30mph or more.

To me, the 94 is infinitely more versatile than the 103. That said, if you're a strong skier and your thing is going real fast in variable conditions on big, open faces and bowls then the 103 is one hell of a ski.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RiDeC58 View Post
Bob, could you comment on your feelings regarding the MoJo 94 vs the Monster 88?

Thanks.
The obvious difference is that the 94, being a twin, "skis" shorter than its advertised length. The 88 actually seems to "ski" a little longer. Being wider and a little softer, the 94 will float more in softer snow, while the 88 just blasts through it. The 94 is a bit turnier, and that might feel good if you're spending a lot of your time in trees, chutes, or moguls.

The new 94 is a really cool ski and I'm looking forward to using it this winter. That's not to take anything away from the 88, however. As I said in the thread about what ski would you choose if your life depended on it, the 88 is the ski I would pick if I were knowingly going somewhere really dangerous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ribs View Post
Bob Peters,

Can you tell me anything about the 07/08 RX Big Heats? I cant find out much about them other than they are burly. Looking for a real opinion. Found a new pair on a closeout.
I haven't skied them. I like Fischers a lot and have never been on a pair that didn't feel good, but I haven't skied that model. Based on the geometry, it would seem like a ski that is more comparable to the iM88 than to the Mojo 94, except that the Big Heat is a tiny bit wider and just a tad turnier in the sidecut. Here's a review I found online:


big powerful skis for allmountain blasters. The Big Heat is fitted with a pretty serious plate and as such they require a frim hand to tame and a little speed to get up to their powerful and agile best. One for the physically strong expert allmountain skier.


Conquer the mountain comfortably. With maximum high speed turns in all terrain. Based on World Cup technology. This means: optimum power flow to the edges despite the ski being very wide. The smoothest ride there is. Top stability for all uses and piste conditions thanks to a completely new ski concept. Just some of the most important details that make this fast-moving "bulldozer" a true all-round speed merchant both on and off-piste.For perfectionists. Innovative World Cup construction with new sidecut and 90mm ski waist for optimum lift in all snow and piste conditions. Also featuring Flowflex.


Sounds like fun.
post #43 of 45
That was diplomatic, Bob.
post #44 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDog View Post
That was diplomatic, Bob.
Just call me Condoleeza.
post #45 of 45

So are most of you that have tested this ski been on alpine?  I'm looking at this for tele with a pair of BD o1's and would like some help on finding a mounting point.  I called Head today and all they told me was I should be fine since there is metal in the ski?  Thanks.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Member Gear Reviews › 2009 Head Mojo 94 - I'm in LOVE!