New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mojo 94 Review

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

 

OK, I've demoed these several times and finally put in a few days on my own pair, so it's time to review.  First, about me:

 

Age 39

Level 8

6'1" 195-200lbs (depends on size of breakfast burrito)

Ski 25-30 days a year, about half out west, rest in the mid-A

 

Skis: Head Mojo 94, 187cm

Bindings: Head Mojo 15

Boots: Salomon Xwave 9, 325mm BSL

Mounted with boot midsole on the mfr. mark, puts me 1cm behind BOF

 

I'll summarize by saying that the Mojo 94 is like a longer, wider, beefier version of the K2 PE that I have always wanted, albeit a little more aloof on groomers than the PE.  Throughout the review, I will compare the Mojos to the Fischer Watea 94, as the skis share similar dimensions (within a couple mm tip and tail) and vie for the same slot in my quiver "on paper".  In reality, they are quite different and don't really compete with each other too much.  

 

The Mojo is a fun capable ski that is smooth and powerful without being taxing.  It has a huge sweet spot and is very easygoing.  I was able to hop on them and adjust to the skis within a few turns, which is much faster than normal for me.  As a result, I was able to start skiing on them for real very quickly and was able to get some good analysis in a short period of time.  I think this is a very approachable ski for a range of skill levels 7-9.

 

In powder, the Mojos are great.  They have a very flat tip, only rising about 40mm, and this gives them a lot of projected area on the snow.  These skis float a bit better than my similar-sized Watea 94s, and have the surfboard feel I have come to associate with much wider skis.  To me, the Mojo 94 feels more like skis I have sampled in the 100mm waist range when in powder.

 

In crud, that flat tip becomes a liability, as the Mojos want to ride over everything.  As a result, they do a poor job busting/cutting through piles of snow (relative to my other crud buster skis) and end up creating a bumpy ride.  This is one area where the Mojo is very similar to the PE, which also has a shallow tip shape and gives me a rodeo ride in heavy crud.  In contrast, the Watea 94's tip rises nearly 40% higher and faster than the Mojo's and that makes a big difference.  The Watea remains the best mid-wide crudbuster in my quiver by a long shot.

 

On groomers, the Mojos ski very well, and they have that smooth damped feel I have come to expect from Heads.  Even at high speed, crossing patches of ice now and then, the Mojos remained composed, stable, and predictable.  I wouldn't say they are great on ice, but they cross it without drama.  The Wateas are a bit too soft and snappy to hang on ice, and complain in the same cases where the Mojo just gets the job done.

 

That said, there is a big qualitative difference between the Mojos and the Wateas on groomers, and I noticed this after spending the afternoon on the Mojos and switching to the Wateas for the last few runs of the day.  Simply put, the Wateas clearly and dramatically outclass the Mojos when carving energetically.  It's like comparing a sports car (Wateas) to a pickup truck (Mojos).  I was really shocked by the difference.  I attribute this difference primarily to the overall feel of the two skis; the Mojos have a fat, dumb, happy "puppy dog" feel, while the Wateas have the classic Fischer "race horse" feel.  Both skis want to go out and play, one just drools and slobbers all over the place while the other knocks your socks off.

 

For me, the Mojo will replace my PEs as a good "do it all" ski that brings twin-tip fun to the table.  Due to their shortcomings in crud (compared to the Wateas) they won't be my first choice when traveling west, but they will be on the short list, especially if trees, tight lines, and adventure skiing are on the menu.

 

I want to make a note about the ski quality, as I have personally handled four pairs of Mojos and all have had defects or problems of some sort.  For a while, I was unsure if I was ever going to be able to buy a pair.  One demo I tried (and I was the first person to ski them) had a mis-shapen tip.  The first pair I tried to buy seemed to be missing adhesive in the tip area, and one ski was delaminating.  The second pair I bought exhibited a pretty significant camber difference between the two skis (6mm) which eventually settled out to about 2-3mm, so I skied them and they seem to be OK.  Asking around on Epic, I found that other people's Mojos also had camber differences between skis, and their raw camber numbers were all over the place compared to mine.  In general, I have the impression that manufacturing and/or quality control sucks on these skis -- they remind me of something from a small indie ski company.

 

Finally, I will note that the Mojos decamber more when waxing than any other ski I have owned.  They go from normal camber (nominally about 10mm under the boot center mark) to being bent over the other way like a banana.  I couldn't believe my eyes.  They went right back to the normal shape as they cooled, and it was crazy watching the tip move several inches relative to the ruler scale I leaned against the ski.

 


Edited by skier219 - 2/27/2009 at 03:15 pm
post #2 of 13

Good review, thanks!   If you have any experience with the two other mid-fat favorites- Dynastar Mythic Rider and Volkl Mantra,- can you speak on how Mojo 94 compares to those skis?

post #3 of 13
Thread Starter 

The Mythic feels a lot more nimble and smaller underfoot, despite the longer turning radius.  Overall, the Mythic feels skinny compared to the Mojos.  I think the Mythic is much more of a finesse ski.  The Mojo always feels big underfoot, and a tiny bit cumbersome.

 

Mantra is better on groomers and has an overall more sophisticated feel, but I never found it to be a great all around ski -- too stiff and racy for soft snow IMO (I'd look to something like the Watea 94 as a better choice). 

 

They are all very different skis.  I like the Mojos for the overall fun factor.  They also happen to be great in bumps as I discovered yesterday.

post #4 of 13

Thanks, I was looking at Mojo 94 as a potential next-year replacement for my all-around western ski (Mythic).  I was hoping to get something a bit turnier, but still stable and versatile, and fun in tight spots and bumps.  Any comment on the style of the ski: does it want to turn for you (like Mantra) or does it respond to your input (like the Mythic)? 

 

Alex

 

post #5 of 13
Thread Starter 

The Mojos have a "point-em and gun-it" feel to me, distinct from both skis.  I wouldn't say they are very rewarding as a carving ski, and they don't give the detailed feedback you get from the Mythic about what's happening underfoot.  The mojos sort of feel like steamrollers to me.

post #6 of 13

Any comment on Watea94 vs Mojo 94 in bumps?  

 

I am also thinking of the 180 in Mojo, as I am 6'/185, so I am lighter thna you and instinctively prefer shorter skis (my Mythic is 178, but it is not a TT).  Did you demo the 180 as well, if so, any feedback?

 

 

post #7 of 13
Thread Starter 

The first time I tried the Mojos only the 180 was available, and it was much too short for my tastes.  The 187 feels perfect to me.  Might just be me though -- recently, I have come to prefer longer skis in general.  Anything below about 182cm usually doesn't offer enough ski up front. 

 

I think the Mojos are marginally better than the Wateas in bumps, but not by much.  The Mojos have an overall smoother flex that gets out of the way.  Wateas have more character to the flex.

post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 

I wanted to add a footnote to this review.  I have spent 3-4 days on the Mojos in spring snow, and they have turned out to be the best spring skis I have tried, even besting my Public Enemies.  The Mojos have a great combination of float, bulk, and damping that makes them roll right over heavy snow clumps.  In addition, they carve soft spring snow with a surprising amount of energy, smoothness, and stability.  Some of the "fat, dumb, happy" characteristics that make the Mojos seem a bit aloof on packed powder actually seem to give them the perfect feel in spring snow, where you may want to trade a bit of finesse for more power and more forgiveness.  For a 187cm ski of generous proportions, the Mojos work out great for spring skiing.

post #9 of 13

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skier219 View Post

 

I wanted to add a footnote to this review.  I have spent 3-4 days on the Mojos in spring snow, and they have turned out to be the best spring skis I have tried, even besting my Public Enemies.  The Mojos have a great combination of float, bulk, and damping that makes them roll right over heavy snow clumps.  In addition, they carve soft spring snow with a surprising amount of energy, smoothness, and stability.  Some of the "fat, dumb, happy" characteristics that make the Mojos seem a bit aloof on packed powder actually seem to give them the perfect feel in spring snow, where you may want to trade a bit of finesse for more power and more forgiveness.  For a 187cm ski of generous proportions, the Mojos work out great for spring skiing.

 

That is where I have the most fun on mine, it's just something about how they move on the snow.

post #10 of 13

Let me say, this has been a great thread!!! I really appreciate Skier219's test format, and his size is close to my 6'2" 200 lb frame, level 8.5-9.

I will be looking for a test ride on these Mojos next season if I can't find an off-season pair, as I ski and buy wider and wider boards. I am not looking to jump up to Pontoon-size boards just yet, and may never.

I still ski a 200 Snow Ranger from '95, but it is only 80mm at the waist. My all-mountain boards are Ninthward First Bloods 180s with a 91mm waist, yeah I like somewhat stiffer boards and accept their powder shortcomings. I'm looking for a surfboard!!!

FYI When I purchased my Snow Rangers in '95 they were so much fatter than just about everything on the market, except for a few heli boards.. Today they are on the narrow side of the market. At that time the weird shapes were coming out and I'm skiing racing Volkls at lengths of 210 for GS and 207 for SL. When I finally broke down and purchased a shaped ski in '01 it was a 195 Xscream. Point here is that I found the RSN forum at Sugarbush and most of the guys there were praising the Screams. So now EpicSki fills that niche   When I bought 180 Ninthwards, I relied on a Powder Mag review, I knew I would need the Railflex bindings, because I knew I was heading to new territory, short skis. So my first powder day on them 2 seasons ago was at Keystone on their Cat Tour. Center mounting proved to be an accident waiting to happen. One adjustment back on the Tyrolias and I am 15mm back of center and nailin' it Sorry I digress!!!

Great thread!

Al

 

 


Edited by snokat - 5/25/2009 at 11:53 am GMT
post #11 of 13

Just scored a pair of 187s for $329 @ TD. Yeah baby!!!

 

Skier, did you center mount on the factory line?

 

Al


Edited by snokat - 5/25/2009 at 11:58 am GMT
post #12 of 13
Thread Starter 

I  mounted right on the line (325mm BSL) and they ski great.  It puts me slightly back of a BOF/CRS mount, which I like. 

post #13 of 13

Kewl, my Salomons are 325s as well. With the railflex2 @ centerline, I'll go with your recommendation and have a forward or back option as well.

Al

 

FYI They arrived today 6/2. 187s measure 185.4 cm with snow contact of approx. 162.5 cm. They do have a very low profile tip.

 


Edited by snokat - 6/2/2009 at 07:28 pm GMT
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Member Gear Reviews