It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
I would say that I was initially stoked on the skis because they were softer then my last pair, and that's what I wanted in a pair of skis, but alas - style changes, and now I have moved on to bigger and better (AK Enemy's) so the stoke on a ski that's 90 underfoot isn't as high. it's a good, fun ski that can take it for a few years, and you can take it anywhere on the mountain.
They did what I needed them to do, almost always. Being lighter (and mine were shorter) they reacted quick in tight situations and were easy enough to throw around. They are good in the park and on the mountain. Not the best powder ski, but if you don't have the cash (or the powder) to warrent a pair of powder skis, you can survive the day using these skis.
not that entertaining, but nice. I don't mind them for the fact that they are simple. I don't think you should pick a ski based on what it looks like.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea.
Before I was riding these sticks I was on the Mad Trix (which is now called the Mojo 80), and the change was very nice. The 90's are a softer ski, and compared to the 80, much more reactive. I could butter them easily and yet they're still stiff enough to stay with you on everything else.
When they came to be in my hands they had been used only a handfull of times before. And while I was using them I made sure they didn't have an easy life. sliding numerous rails, landing on rocks, skiing on rocks, using them as a hammer, you know - the ususal shit... and the base got fucked up, the tail is delaming, but the edges are still intact and with a little duct tape the ski skis fine (just a little slower then normal).
They have been downgraded to my rail skis after two years of use. But do you expect a ski to last any longer?