EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Head Johnny 94 vs John/mojo 94 (how much difference does the rocker make?)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Head Johnny 94 vs John/mojo 94 (how much difference does the rocker make?)

post #1 of 13
Thread Starter 

Hi all, been reading the forums for sometime but this is my first post, I recently used a pair of Head John 94's and loved them, really suited the range of sking I do which is split between the Alps and the west coast of the US.

 

As far as I can tell the John is now the Johnny and is the same dimensions and construction except that the Johnny is stated as having a tip and tail rocker. Has anyone had a chance to ski both versions? I'm a long way off being a downhill demon but I do need some carving ability for when it gets a little firm in the Alps. How much has the rocker changed the performance of the original John/mojo 94.

 

Oh, and Im 5'11, 165pounds and liked the 173, would I be better off with a 180 in a rocker ski?

 

Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

 

(tangents always welcome :)

post #2 of 13

Here's a primary tangent...

 

There is no rocker on the 2010/2011 Johnny.  It's the same construction as the Mojo 94 as the John 94 as the Johnny 94.  They are all the same ski.

 

According to a someone who posted in an earlier thread on the same subject, Powder magazine may have stated in a review article this fall that there is rocker in the Johnny.  That is not true. 

 

No rocker in the Johnny.  It skis the same.

post #3 of 13

Slow', I have the 187s and it is a great all-around board, the softish tail makes it an easy to ski board. One of my buds skis the 180s and is your size, and he loves them especially after skiing Apaches for too long. He moved up in length due to the twin-tip.

Here he is choppin' up the crud on Forever.

Mojo Again 001.jpg

post #4 of 13

HI i ski this years johnny 94, bought it this month.  Head website show the rocker technology beside the johnny 94.  I orginally read they had a mild rocker with a traditional camber for a more natural sking ability on the groomers; when viewing the link they show the rocker technology on the page with the Johnny 94 up to the carlos 125.  Whether it's has a slight rocker or not, I couldn't tell you, I just ski them and this is what I find.   

 

There's head's info on the ski. http://www.head.com/ski/ski.php?region=us&tag=big_mountain&id=3040

 

The rocker isn't noticeable looking at it but I guess does allow the ski to bend up fast when bent.  What I find about the ski is yes, I can most deffinitely carve the ski on a soft groomer.  I wish I had the photos from last week but then I'd have to count on my internet to upload them and that's rare. 

 

When skiing them, I like them, they're fun they do give me float in powder, they are not as stiff as my IM 77 or my race ski (contact ST) and I found them really twitchy at first, pressure the tip and look out they just cut a turn across in front of me.  Didn't expect that from a 19 radius ski.  I detuned the tip at the widest portion, maybe 1 inch(where the rocker would be) and they are way less twictchy.  I am also much better at feathering them into a turn on groomers and crud.  They're good in crud, where I tend to arc them and put them on edge and inspite of the radius i can switch up the turn size and go edge to edge much faster then I would have thought, but a true short raduis dynamic turn on them is proving to be a challenge to me,  and I find them sloppy in bumps, but I am still adapting to the slide and pivoting ski instead of edged; also our bumps have not had a lot of snow on them, icy between.  I'm 5'5" around 140 and on the 173 to ski, Ski Castle, Canada where we get a lot of snow and alot of deep stuff.  I really like them here and they've become more and more my all mountain ski, I'm teaching on them accept the rare time we freeze up and have no fresh snow, when I switch to my ImM 77 for everything.

 

I really like the ski as an all round western ski, skis very traditional accept what I mentioned and i have a traditional mounting point.  I want to try the Jerry now at 105 underfoot with the reverse camber and rocker, I'm not as on top of the powder as some. 


Edited by lady_Salina - 1/9/11 at 6:48am
post #5 of 13

Looks like Head made a small mod this year afterall, so Slow' should go longer...the 180s will ski even shorter with the rocker, modest or not.

 

Also, my Heads at 187 are much shorter than my K2s at 189, you can see the difference below.

Active Quiver 110 (Medium).JPG

post #6 of 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by lady_Salina View Post

HI i ski this years johnny 94, bought it this month.  Head website show the rocker technology beside the johnny 94.  I orginally read they had a mild rocker with a traditional camber for a more natural sking ability on the groomers; when viewing the link they show the rocker technology on the page with the Johnny 94 up to the carlos 125.  Whether it's has a slight rocker or not, I couldn't tell you, I just ski them and this is what I find.   

 

There's head's info on the ski. http://www.head.com/ski/ski.php?region=us&tag=big_mountain&id=3040

 

The rocker isn't noticeable looking at it but I guess does allow the ski to bend up fast when bent.  What I find about the ski is yes, I can most deffinitely carve the ski on a soft groomer.  I wish I had the photos from last week but then I'd have to count on my internet to upload them and that's rare. 

 

 

 

Admittedly this is very confusing and I'm not making excuses for Head's marketing people. 

 

Lady Salina, if you look carefully at the website you cite above and compare it with the sites for the other skis in the "Big Mountain" category (the Jimi, Jerry, and Carlos), you will note an important difference.  ALL of those four skis have that "rocker technology" window to the right of the ski description. 

 

HOWEVER... if you look at the "Features" listing for each individual ski in the big mountain line, you'll see that while "Rocker Shape" is listed as a feature for the Jimi, Jerry, and Carlos, it is omitted in the feature listing for the the Johnny 94.

 

Here is the feature listing for the Johnny 94:

 
   
   
   
   
   
   

 

 

Features
+ Sandwich twintip construction
+ Extra durable ABS sidewalls
+ Highly transparent UHM base
+ Bindings: HEAD Mojo 12 (white/multicolor)
+  
+ These skis may also be available with different bindings.
Details
Skill: experts
Terrain: powder, open bowls
Style: excellent skiing technique
Speed: fast
Length: 152 / 159 / 166 / 173 / 180 / 187
Radius: 19.5 @ 180
Sidecut: 132/94/119 @ 180

 

 

And here is the listing for the Jerry 104:

 

Features
+ Sandwich twintip Construction
+ Extra durable ABS sidewalls
+ Highly transparent UHM base
+ Rocker Shape
+ Bindings: HEAD Mojo 15 (white/multicolor)
+  
+ These skis may also be available with different bindings.
Details
Skill: top skiers
Terrain: deep snow
Style: excellent, sophisticated skiing technique
Speed: fast
Length: 171 / 181 / 191
Radius: 26.0 @ 181
Sidecut: 130/104/120 @ 181


Again, there is no rocker to this year's Johnny 94.


 

post #7 of 13

Bob, that is interesting, good catch! Have you seen any Johnnys yet? I can't seem to find them online anywhere. Also can't imagine why this ski would need any rocker with the tip and tail design the way it is. These skis have plenty of float.

post #8 of 13
Thread Starter 

Cheers everyone for the great feedback, especially Bob for clearing up the slightly sloppy product information from Head, thankfully their ski designers do a far better job than their web designers and marketing people.

 

Great fun ski, I think I will take the collective advice and go for the 180. Anyone have a thought on the Mojo 12 or 15 Binding? I was considering a 9mm riser plate as they will get a fair amount of hard snow, I demoed the Johns with a demo binding that jacked them up higher than a flat mounting but they felt great to me in conditions ranging from 5’ inches of powder to crud, corn and firm groomer with ice patches.

 

 

I love the enthusiasm of the folks on these forums, keep up the good work! 

post #9 of 13

The Mojo 12 will be enough based on your weight. I have Tyrolia RF HD 14s on mine, but I'm well over 200 lbs all geared up. I do have Mojo 15s on my Hellbents, and I do like their solid feel, but you don't need those unless you are hucking cliff bands. lol

 

As far as a riser plate goes, with the Railflex plates on mine, I can't say I actually feel any difference or even notice them. Slow', don't misunderstand, the Heads don't need the Railflex, it is just that at the time I bought the Mojos I was using the RFs on several pairs of skis because I was experimenting with mounting points.

 

Also, I see Head says these skis are for experts. EXPERTS? Don't believe their hype, any solid intermediate could handle these with just a couple of runs. I found the first edge set to be effortless right off the lift.

 

NJoy your new stix!


Edited by snokat - 1/11/11 at 3:24am
post #10 of 13

So it looks like the Mojo 94 got some rocker in its later iteration the Motorhead Rock and Roll.  (It is probably the ugliest ski ever.)

 

Has anyone had a chance to ski the Rock and Roll? How does it compare to the Mojo 94?

 

On paper the specs appear the same. How did they keep the turn radius the same while adding some rocker?

post #11 of 13

Oh, dear, just saw the graphics.  How could they go from making one of the classiest design skis (Mojo94) to a graphics that arguably out-K2 the K2s is beyond me.  So, from Fischer-Price puke to juvenile goth puke, way to go Head...  From a short video I saw, the rocker is very small, so I'd expect the ski to be mostly the same.  Should be good if you can swallow the graphics.  FWIIW, I plan to sell my Mojo94s this season- too many new skis that are extremely good...

post #12 of 13

I only got the Rock 'n Rolls because Head replaced my Mojos under warranty. Normally, graphics don't affect my ski choice, but there is a first time for everything. My wife called them "the Ed Hardy of skis".

 

I'm thinking about spray painting the tops, but the worst part is that the bases have the same horrible graphics.

 

My real concern is if, even with the minimal rocker, I should move up a size. I thought the 180's I had were perfect.

post #13 of 13

Head Motorhead Rock’n’Roll 173cm
Now these skis are solid and light.

Really responsive and VERY ugly - like, super FUGLY to me, but if you like your music metal - styled....

I would cover up the top sheet!

They come with bindings which makes them an attractive package.

These skis also floated over the bumps and turned on a dime.

I cannot decide between these and the Liberty Envy Powder for my fav skis of the day


From my SkiDiva post:
http://www.theskidiva.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12552

 

 

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 Johnny 94 vs John/mojo 94 (how much difference does the rocker make?)