Splitboard.com Forums

The World's first exclusive splitboard discussion forums






It is currently Tue Aug 19, 2014 10:05 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: New Mojo 171
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:12 am
Posts: 828
Location: PNW Hood Canal
I just rode my new mojo 71 for the first time. It was noticably lighter on the skin up, just like bcrider stated when he got his mojo. The board rode very well down although we were not riding tremendously steep or long runs. I broke the skin track for me and my riding pal, and a pair of skiiers on AT gear followed our track up. I have been really huffing as I skinned and maybe now I know why. The second of the skiiers said that skin track was as steep as he could possibly go and he slipped back a number of times, especially doing kick turns. Maybe I'm not as bad at this stuff as I thought.

The mojo was at least 4 pounds lighter than my burton, with the AT boots and voile plates that I ride in I was able to hold an edge on the crusty snow we enountered, the day was great and I left fresh enough to have been able to make another turn if the clock would have been in my favor. I had to get home to make dinner for the family.

Mojo rocked, even in icy crust, corn, and soft powder as we encountered it all. No dings in the thin sun exposed coverage either, just a few cap edge curlies from me skinning on my own planks.

_________________
Mumbles...addicted thanks to sb.com
Mojo 171 / ST 178 / C-Split 165 / DIY Johan 162
Sparks Ignition II's / Mr. Chomps
DC Torch / Lowa Structura EVO AT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: New Mojo 171
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1620
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Mumbles wrote:
The mojo was at least 4 pounds lighter than my burton.

I find that hard to believe unless there were other things that were different between the setups. Would be interesting to put them both on the scale w/interface parts but no bindings etc. That Burton is definitely heavy, but I can't see 4 lbs... IIRC mine weighed 10.something w/interface but no bindings. My lightest non-split was around 7 lbs w/o bindings. The Mojo is light but no way is it that light. The Prior Carbon splits on the other hand, are seriously light. But who is going to pay $1500...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: jimw it is the setup, not just the board
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 10:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:12 am
Posts: 828
Location: PNW Hood Canal
jimw, my burton is set up with the burton interface as set of carrier plate bindings and canting plates that are solid wedges that fit under the entire footprint of the burton interface.

My mojo is just he voile slider tracks and pucks. I don't have canting plates (yet) which if I have to make a set myself or buy some will add some weight.

I did get on the scale with the burton, then the mojo, the difference was 3.9 pounds if you want to be precise, not 4 pounds...but I did say about 4 pounds.

I'm really not full of shit you know, but the setups are different, not just weight savings attributed to the mojo board itself. The burton interface weighs more than the voile. The burton carrier plate bindings weigh more than the voile mountian plates. The cants beneath the burtons are solid HDPE and add a noticeable amount of weight.

I'm not bagging on the burton, I like the board and interface and have collected spare parts to keep it alive forever, I'm just saying that the mojo as ridden today is about 4 pounds (3.9) lighter than the burton I rode last week.

_________________
Mumbles...addicted thanks to sb.com
Mojo 171 / ST 178 / C-Split 165 / DIY Johan 162
Sparks Ignition II's / Mr. Chomps
DC Torch / Lowa Structura EVO AT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1620
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Well, I did say:
Quote:
I find that hard to believe unless there were other things that were different between the setups

i.e. besides just the boards themselves... and you didn't clarify in your first post that the setups were quite different did you? Without the clarification someone could get the wrong impression that the board alone is way lighter.

Since you have the scale, I'm curious what the actual difference in the Burton interface weight vs. the Voile is. I always thought the weight difference wasn't that much.

What is the weight difference in the boards alone? That oughtta be interesting considering the Mojo is longer.

Quote:
I'm really not full of shit you know

Dude relax, it's not a personal attack! :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 6:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 1:12 am
Posts: 828
Location: PNW Hood Canal
jimw,
No offense taken. My scale is actually a digital bathroom scale so it is not so precise to be able to just measure the weight of the interfaces. What I do is weigh myself with and without the board. Not as good as having a gram mettler scale, but for my purposes it works. The mojo is longer with a similar waist width, but honestly it is also thinner than the burton. I will see if I can come up with some more relavant apples to apples data vice just the apples to oranages comparison. I still want to add cants to the mojo, which will add weight, how much is not certain. Maybe I will find a scale with better precision at small weights.

I'm not thin skinned, so you have not offended me. You'll have to work harder than that.

_________________
Mumbles...addicted thanks to sb.com
Mojo 171 / ST 178 / C-Split 165 / DIY Johan 162
Sparks Ignition II's / Mr. Chomps
DC Torch / Lowa Structura EVO AT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1620
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Mumbles wrote:
I'm not thin skinned, so you have not offended me. You'll have to work harder than that.

I'll try harder... :)

Just got the Burton 168 the other day. It seems pretty heavy too. My buddy has a Mojo 171. I'm going to try to procure the scale at work and take some measurements...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Get over it
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 5:09 pm
Posts: 21
Location: Washington
I really like coming on here to read reviews and see what people think of new boards but C'MON! You two sound like an old married couple. I think you guys need to get off the scale and on your next skin remember what it was like having your board on your back. I don't really want to knock the progress this sport has undergone. And I'm sure both of you have helped somebody out there with this issue, but the bickering? Its a waste of our time.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 8:41 pm
Posts: 1620
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Sorry chadheuter for wasting your time. I'm just curious what the real weights are. In either case it definitely is a lot nicer than having the board on your back, had that driven home last weekend while slowshoeing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:41 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 7:22 am
Posts: 255
Location: The Kootenays
ah, when they get divorced, jimw gets custody of the burton and mumbles gets the voile

_________________
skis are for walkin', boards are for ridin'...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 06, 2004 10:57 pm
Posts: 4945
Location: California
InTheMountains wrote:
ah, when they get divorced, jimw gets custody of the burton and mumbles gets the voile


ok, that was funny. :)




ps. jimw, I'll try to get the weights of the 162 s-series and the 161 mojo for you.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 8:37 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Boulder, CO
... some more Mojo talk...

Rider: 186+ lbs, 5" 8"
Board: White as snow Mojo 171
Location: In-bounds @Homewood, Tahoe on Sat and BC @ Waterhouse, South Lake Tahoe on Sunday.
Conditions: POW and more POW - respectively
My other Splits: Khyber 165 and 171 Gun
My other boards: 169 Vokyl Appocalypse & some Burton super-something

I wanted to chime in on this board being that it's pretty long for my height and people often wonder what length to get - I was thinking i might have regrets. I also read some post about it turning like a shorter board.

The first thing i noticed is that this board rips turns like a champ. It seems to "pop" or spring out of the turn. It kind of has a "lively" feel. I think someone else said this, and i'll repeat it - it turns like a shorter board :shock: . As far as skinning ease, weight, and all that stuff - nothing super noticeable to me. I'm a little bummed because since none of my other boards are snappy like this, I feel like i want to replace them. So, in summary, no regrets - it feels like a do-all board to me, compared to the Khyber which kind of wants to spin out in anything but POW and doesn't seem to have as much snap & stability.. poor poor Kyhber :cry: Steve


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: sizing
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 1:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:39 am
Posts: 2
Location: AK/MT
hey guys..this is my first post i suppose..

anyway i was hoping for a size recommendation, i've read several opinions but none that quite match my height/weight/riding style. i'm almost 6', 175 or so without gear. i ride an arbor woodie 162 inbounds/hiking. right now living in western mt, so wide open bowls are present, but as are killer tree runs for which a shorter board may be beneficial. i guess it comes down to the 66 or 71, just wondering what you guys thought!

_________________
let it be


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2008 3:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:59 am
Posts: 549
Location: Stowe, VT
I wouldn't go for the 171 until you try it first. if you have to buy one sight-unseen, go for the 166. But you would really be better off to rent one somewhere before you buy.

YMMV,
Shep


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 21 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  





Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group