2006 Head Supermojo

[kb1dqh]

Head's line is looking pretty good this year. Anyone getting a pair of the new Supermojos? Freeskier sure raved about them- not that it means much- but they were fairly critical of other skis. Anyway, it sounds like this ski will be a bit softer and maybe more versatile than the I.M. 103? Any thoughts? Oh yeah- the price is pretty high on this one.

-kb

EDIT: I have seen this thread, but it's useless. http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=35731

[Greydon Clark]

It is unchanged from the Monster 103, but it looks better.

[FigureEleven]

I am curious what Freeskier thought of the 103's last year.

[brutah]

It is unchanged from the Monster 103, but it looks better.

Except that the supermojo is twintipped and the i.m 103 is not. The supermojo is easier to turn and lighter than the i.m 103, i.e., smaller turn radius. Same dimensions, but not completely the same ski.

[robokill1981]

Except that the supermojo is twintipped and the i.m 103 is not.

You sure about that?

[Particle]

Except that the supermojo is twintipped and the i.m 103 is not. The supermojo is easier to turn and lighter than the i.m 103, i.e., smaller turn radius. Same dimensions, but not completely the same ski.

Ummm no. I just checked them out in our warehouse and they are NOT twinned. They and feel look identical to the 103s.

[focus]

"The Head Supermojo is the hardcore of the Mojo line. Those who use the Head Supermojo know the true meaning of freeride. Developed for the Head Pro Freeride Team, the Supermojo is the perfect ski for cover shots, while its Twintip construction will make you the king of the backcountry. If you are looking for a ski to have fun in the park or ski Big Mountain, the Head Supermojo is the ski for you."
http://www.untracked.com/highlight-175944.html

Not that Al's Ski Barn is the authority....

so which is it?

[BakerBoy]

WE ALREADY WENT THROUGH THIS! There is no new updated SuperMojo. Head couldn't get the molds right, and ended up just reskinning the m103. So when everyone sees it in stores, you can post here and say it's the truth. I saw over many pairs last year that were the same, and actually skied the "SuperMojos" at the PowMag ski test. They are just 103s...

Look, I even used the SEARCH function and found a picture for you. Do these look like they have a big twin?


edit #2: Brutah is an idiot. Same dimensions, different turn radius? Seriously.

[focus]

sorry...don't spend every minute here and read every thread. i miss stuff.... Didn't think raising the question in a thread about the ski in question when the issue had already come up would be a problem.

i'll try to do better.

re: edit #2: if it has a twin, it could change the radius by bringing the rear tail measurement forwards.... also, if it was a new mold (which we all understand now that it isn't) the radius could change in lots of ways while retaining the same tip/waist/tail measurements. not saying the brute isn't an idiot....but he isn't an idiot b/c of the radius comment.

[BakerBoy]

sorry...don't spend every minute here and read every thread. i miss stuff.... Didn't think raising the question in a thread about the ski in question when the issue had already come up would be a problem.

i'll try to do better.

re: edit #2: if it has a twin, it could change the radius by bringing the rear tail measurement forwards.... also, if it was a new mold (which we all understand now that it isn't) the radius could change in lots of ways while retaining the same tip/waist/tail measurements. not saying the brute isn't an idiot....but he isn't an idiot b/c of the radius comment.

No, nobody should. That's why you can search, JONG! Just kidding. Yes, you would be correct. I apologize. If they slapped a twin on that thing without making it any longer (theoretically, non-K2 measuring, that is), then yes, it would change the turn radius. It would also change the effective tail width, since regardless of how much wider the tail got, the contact point would still be skinnier. So then it wouldn't have the same dimensions, unless they measured non-contact points.

[Vitamin I]

It is unchanged from the Monster 103, but it looks better.

Does anyone know if they took out the "Intelli-fibers" when they changed the name from Monster i.m103 to SuperMojo? This year's Head website no longer mentions any Intelligence stuff in the Supermojo.

Monster line is the "Intelligence" electro flex-resisting stuff, and Mojo line does not have those fibers. The i.m103 was in the Monster line, and the "i" stood for the "Intelligence" fibers. Now as "Supermojo", did they remove the Intelli-stuff to make it more like the rest of the Mojo line?

[Jim S]

Tangential: When I was in Portillo this summer there were a lot of Head skis. Far more than I see hear in the Tahoe area. K2 and Salomon weren't nearly as popular.




Go ahead, me off!

[Meathelmet]

Does anyone know if they took out the "Intelli-fibers" when they changed the name from Monster i.m103 to SuperMojo? This year's Head website no longer mentions any Intelligence stuff in the Supermojo.

Monster line is the "Intelligence" electro flex-resisting stuff, and Mojo line does not have those fibers. The i.m103 was in the Monster line, and the "i" stood for the "Intelligence" fibers. Now as "Supermojo", did they remove the Intelli-stuff to make it more like the rest of the Mojo line?

As far as I know, 103s never even had the intelli stuff in them.

The "chips" are painted on the topsheet, unlike for example im.85 wich had the chips imbedded within it.

[Vitamin I]

The "chips" are painted on the topsheet, unlike for example im.85 wich had the chips imbedded within it.

yeah, that circuiit graphic is so fake.

but after I read the website, it sounded like some i.M skis had both the chip AND the special intelligence fibers, while other i.M skis had just the special intelligence fibers WITHOUT the chip. so it sounded like the i.M103 had the intelligence fibers without the chip. but the new website does not mention initelligence techcnology for the supermojo.

hard to know when there's any substance behind the website market-speak...

[Spats]

Yes, the 103 was intelligence-less, and of sandwich construction. All the other Monsters were cap skis with Intellifibers, and a couple had the chip in addition.

[Professor]

the 103 was intelligence-less

No question about it the 103 is a stupid ski......

[frorider]

the m103 rules. period. it is too much ski for some, but then again there are many softer fat skis from salomon and K2 etc if you don't want the high speed perfection that the m103 represents.

i had heard they were softening the supermojo. glad they didn't.

[cmsummit]

183 Supermojo
mounted flat on the line with Sally 900's

wow. these skis rip. flexing them I thought they would ski similar to my Explosivs and they do, but they're better. They are more damp with a smoother feel and have a larger sweet spot than the Explosivs. They rail groomers suprisingly well and don't make that annoying "pinging" sound when you bang 'em together on the lift. Can't wait to get them out on some real terrain and test out the top end. FKNA!

[pechelman]

fkna cm!
still havent gotten on mine yet.
i brought them with me last time up and theyre in the car right now along with some g41 rock'ish groomer skis. Debating which to ski..this may have decided for me.

also, which 'sploders are ya used to? 180/190 buddah/wizard
you're 5'11ish 175ish right?

[cmsummit]

I have a pair of old, blue 180 'sploders as my rock skis, so yeah they are short and it's really no surprise that the supermojos feel more stable, but they feel more forgiving as well.

I'm 6', 165ish.

[thebigeast]

Except that the supermojo is twintipped and the i.m 103 is not. The supermojo is easier to turn and lighter than the i.m 103, i.e., smaller turn radius. Same dimensions, but not completely the same ski.

as far as the twin tip thing goes, there is the supermojo 105 (big twin tip, softer than the 103) which is a new ski this year, then the supermojo 103 which is the same as last years supermojo thus the ski as the monster 103