Hello and welcome to my Capita Indoor Survival snowboard review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Indoor Survival as an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Indoor Survival a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Capita Indoor Survival
Price: $619
Style: All-Mountain-Freestyle
Flex Rating: Medium (5/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium (5.5/10)
Rating Score: 83.3/100
Compared to other Men’s All-Mountain-Freestyle Boards
Of the 33 current model all-mountain freestyle snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Indoor Survival ranked 21st= out of 33
Overview of the Indoor Survival's Specs
Check out the tables for the Indoor Survival's specs and available sizes.
Specs
STYLE:
ALL-MOUNTAIN-FREESTYLE
PRICE:
$619 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
Traditional Camber
TRADITIONAL Camber - Capita's "PARK V1 + FLAT KICK TECH" - technically not fully cambered, as there are some flat sections before the contact points, but practically full camber.
SHAPE:
setback stance:
Centered
BASE:
Sintered | Capita's "Quantum Drive™"
weight:
Felt normal
Camber Height:
6mm!
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
150 | 249 | 100-150 | 45-68 |
152 | 250 | 110-160 | 50-72 |
154 | 255 | 120-180 | 54-81 |
156 | 258 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
158 | 260 | 140-200 | 63-90 |
160 | 262 | 150-210 | 68-95 |
155W | 261 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
158W | 265 | 140-200 | 63-90 |
161W | 268 | 155-215+ | 70-97+ |
Who is the Indoor Survival Best Suited To?
The Indoor Survival is most suited to those looking for a freestyle oriented board, that's a little more aggressive, but not ultra aggressive, and something that lay down carves on the groomers and basically do a bit of everything well, apart from powder.
It's biggest strengths lie in jumping but when you're not hitting jumps/side hits, it can hold it's own everywhere else.
A one-board quiver for the right rider, if you don't need powder performance.
Not for beginners. But intermediate and up, with a freestyle flavor to their riding, and looking for something that can handle a slightly more aggressive approach, should like this board.
The Indoor Survival in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Indoor Survival is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Capita Indoor Survival 2024, 156cm (258mm waist width)
Date: March 21, 2023
Conditions
Mostly cloudy with some blue patches and the sun poking through occasionally. But bright and good visibility throughout the day (with some low cloud rolling in just as I was finishing up).
Temp 1°C (34°F) in the morning and warmed up to 3°C (37°F) in the afternoon. Wind was gentle at 5kph (3mph).
24hr snow: 0cm (0")
48hr snow: 0cm (0")
7 day snow: 5cm (2")
On groomer: Soft packed bordering on slushy to start and got progressively more slushy. Bumpy and rutty in places.
Off groomer: Not great but doable. Slushy for the most part - but it's better than ice!
Setup
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 22" (560mm)
Stance Setback: Centered
Width at Inserts: 267mm (10.51")
Rider Height: 6'0"
Rider Weight: 180lbs
Rider Boot Size: US9.5 Adidas Response ADV
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Weight: 6lbs 3oz (2820 grams)
Weight per cm: 18.08 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.71 grams/cm*
*based on a sample size of around 250 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 & 2024 models. So the Indoor Survival is lighter than average on the scales. Felt normal on snow.
Powder
Nothing to test in on the day, but based on specs and feel, it's not going to have great powder float. Being a nearly full camber, centered stance, true twin board, it's not made for powder.
Carving & Turning
Carving: One of the better twin carvers. While this board is setup for freestyle riding, it can lay down a great carve at pretty good speeds when you want to.
Ease of Turning/Slashing: It's right on average in terms of turn initiation. It's not super hard to initiate turns on or anything, but it's also not completely effortless. You've got to put a little weight/technique into it. But when you do it responds nicely.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Again, not effortless, but when you did put in that little bit of effort, it was actually pretty quick edge-to-edge at slow speeds.
Catchiness: Not completely catch-free, would be something you could catch an edge on if you got it too wrong. But it's also not something that I found overly catchy or anything.
Speed
Really good for handling speed for a mid-flexing, freestyle focused twin. It's not up there with the best, but it's got good speed and good stability at moderately high speeds.
Uneven Terrain
Crud: Not super damp or anything (but some dampness to it) but it handled crud pretty well. Didn't get bucked around too easily.
Trees/Bumps: You can get this thing zipping from edge-to-edge pretty quickly, so it does well weaving between bumps - when you put in the effort - but it's not so much effort that you lose your technique and are just hoicking it around. In powder in trees, it wouldn't be as good.
Jumps
Now were getting into this board's forte. It really likes to get air.
Pop: You gotta put in a little bit of effort to get it popping. That said, it's not super hard to access the pop, it's just not completely effortless. When you do put in the effort, especially when you really wind it up, it gives back really decent pop.
Approach: A really nice mix of stable but easy enough to adjust and speed check.
Landing: Stomper.
Side-hits: Wouldn't put it in my top tier for side hits but still really decent.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Sweet spot is medium to large.
Switch
Feels good on transitions. You've got to concentrate a little as it's not completely catch-free, but it's still easy to transition on. And riding the other direction feels really good - naturally being a true twin.
Spins
Good for spinning. Not ideal when setting up switch as it's not fully catch-free, but overall it's really good. It's good in the air, easy to get the spin around and lands/sets up switch decently well.
Jibbing
Not what I'd deem my ideal jibbing board. But it's decent enough.
Butters
You've got to put a bit of weight into the tip/tail to get it to press, but it will press and it's not super hard to get it buttering.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Jumps | 4.5 | 18/20 |
| Carving | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Turns | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Switch | 4.5 | 9/10 |
| Speed | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Spins | 4 | 8/10 |
| Butters | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Jibbing | 3 | 3/5 |
| Crud etc | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Trees | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Pow | 2 | 2/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 83.3/100 |
The Indoor Survival is a very versatile board that does freestyle really well, with a slightly more than average aggressiveness.
But it's not restricted to just riding freestyle. While jumps are it's best attribute, it carves really well for a twin and can take you just about everywhere, except powder (well it can take you there, for sure, like any board can, but it would feel sinky and be a back leg burner, IMO).
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you want to learn more about the Indoor Survival or if you are ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to check out some other all-mountain-freestyle snowboard options, or if you want to compare how the Indoor Survival compares to other all-mountain-freestyle snowboards, then check out the next link.
Hey Nate,
Interested in the Resort Twin and the Indoor Survival as a park board to pair with a Greats. Would it be fair to say the Indoor is the better carver and the Resort Twin is more playful and easier to butter? Can you comment on easier to access pop and total pop as well? Also did you notice a difference in base glide as the IS is sintered and the RT is sintruded?
I like the Greats, have it in a 154 but it’s too much board for me in the park as I’m a beginner there.
Also, I’m 5″10, 160-170 lbs and size 9 boots, what size would you recommend?
Thanks
Hi Mark, thanks for your message.
As mentioned on my reply to your comment in the Resort Twin Review, I think the Resort Twin would be your best bet of those 2.
In terms of pop, the RT is easier to access it and the IS has more total pop, in my experience. But the IS isn’t super hard to access the pop on and the RT has decent enough total pop too. The IS has the faster base and better glide, so long as you keep it waxed, but I didn’t notice a massive difference personally.
Size-wise, I’d go 152 if you were to go IS to mellow it out a bit. The RT you could go 152 or 154. Given you’re just starting out in the park and you’ve mentioned jibbing, small/medium jumps and buttering, I’d probably err 152 on the RT as well, but the 154 would be suitable too.
Personally if I was getting a second board to be my dedicated park board and wasn’t planning on hitting any large jumps or anything, then I’d go with an even bigger contrast to the Greats personally. The RT does represent a decent contrast, particularly if you go 152, so that’s definitely what I’d go with out of the 3 you’re looking at. But I’d also check out this list to see if there’s anything there you can get on sale that might work for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate, sorry for the spam I didn’t realize I messaged you across all three 🙁 Thank you for the replies!
I have looked at your lists, always do! Lead me to buying a Protoslinger, Greats and a Deep Thinker.
I got rid of the Proto cause I realized I prefer more camber.
In terms of the Greats, I do love how it turns. But I find it lacking in the pop section. Also as an east coaster on a very small hill, I just don’t use the Greats anymore. When I go on trips, it makes more sense to take the DT as well. I have one of those mural 23 greats and at this point, it’s more wall art to me as opposed to something I actively use.
I’m drawn to Capita cause I love how lightweight and poppy they are. As of now, I can only find a 152 IS and a 154 RT. Can’t find a 152 RT this year unfortunately and I am not a fan of how the 26 looks. Plus would prefer to get it on end of season sale.
I like that the Indoor has more camber, I find those to have a nice locked in feel. I know I have to work harder to press and ollie but sounds more rewarding with a higher pop ceiling.
I like that the RT has the rocker to make pressing easier. But I’ve heard it’s stiffer torsionally so makes buttering a bit harder. I also like that it has easier to access pop. But with less camber I’m worried the pop ceiling will be lacking like the Greats and won’t feel as locked in. I do like the idea of an extruded base that’s fast though, that makes life easier.
So if I’m not using the Greats and this is a 2 board quiver with the Deep Thinker, which one would you pick? The 152 IS or the 154 RT? Or is it just a toss up due to the size difference?
Thanks Nate!
Hey Mark, no worries, each message contained different useful info, so that was good.
If you’re OK with the more locked in feeling and having to be on your game more when learning in the park and pop is one of the most important things for you, which it sounds like it is, then I’d be leaning IS. Particularly if it’s going to be more replacing, rather than complimenting, the Greats and that you have the option of the 152. If you only had 154 in both, I’d still be leaning RT, but given how you feel about the more locked in feeling being a preference, total pop being of the importance it is, the fact it will be a replacement for the Greats and that you can get it in the 152, the IS is probably your best bet, in light of the new info. I’m sure you’ll have no issues riding it in general, my concern was more with learning park stuff, but going with 152 should make it that much easier to butter, spin etc and mellow it out vs if you were to go with the 154 or 156.
Note that I didn’t find the RT torsionally stiff personally – certainly no more so than the IS, and I don’t think the 154 RT would be a bad choice for you, but yeah I would be leaning IS 152 now, given new info.
hi Nate!!! i can’t decide between a IS 158 or 158w i have 44 eu boots i’m tall 1,87 and my weight is 75kg…i’m really focus on carving right now but i like to have an all mountain board to go everywhere and do some tricks occasionaly …. i come from a never summer prototype 2 in 158w so looking at the specs the IS 158w is close to that
thank for your answer!! Matteo
Hi Matteo, thanks for your message.
Assuming your EU44 translates to a 28.5 mondopoint, then it’s a close call between the regular 158 and the 158W for the IS. Depending on the brand, an EU44 could be a mondo 28, 28.5 or even 29. If it’s a 28, then I think your good to go with the regular width 158. If it’s a 29, I would go 158W for sure, particularly given you’re focused on carving.
The IS is a little wider in its regular width sizes than a typical board, but not as much as the 260mm waist suggests. I measured the width at inserts at 267mm – so only a 7mm difference (the average difference is around 10mm). Typically I would be comfortable with a 28.5 Mondo on anything with a 265mm+ insert width, so you should be good, but if you have a really flat back binding angle and/or a bulkier boot, then it might be safer to go 158W, if you’re looking to really start getting your carves on a high edge angle.
Hope this helps with your decision
G’day Nate,
So long story short, injuries have stuffed up my knee and neck for riding regular and I now need a board for getting back into riding switch, ground tricks and small side hits. It will have to ride in some low angle powder and side country, and carve on a groomer, which I’ll also need to do switch some of the time.
I won’t be doing any sizeable jumps, flat base bombing runs or back country.
I recently did a basic technique lesson to start me riding switch again after 10 years of going regular. To start the process I rented a new Huck Knife (too soft) and a Mountain Twin (slightly too stiff) to start me off.
I’m after a twin or a directional twin which rides well centred, to help me progress riding switch around the resort. Do you think the IS could be in the Goldie Locks zone for me.
I’m 185cm (6’1), 85kg (190lbs or so) with a size 9 boot.
Feel free to suggest another board you think might be suitable for my situation.
Cheers mate, keep up the great work.
Mike
Hi Mike, thanks for your message (and apologies for the slow reply – way behind atm!)
Flex-wise, I think it could be in that Goldie Locks zone for you, and for the most part, I think it would work well. Where you might find it lacking is in powder. It’s not great there.
Some others you could check out, that I would say are really similar flex-wise, but a little better for powder, include:
– Capita Outerspace Living
– Jones Mind Expander Twin
– Rome Warden
– Slash Brainstorm
– YES Standard (I found it a little softer than the MT, but some say they find it stiffer, so I’d say it would work (so long as you sized appropriately – it should be ridden a little shorter) but just something to keep in mind.
Hope this helps (if it didn’t come too late)
Hey Nate,
Looking at getting this board, my current freestyle oriented board is a 156 ’23 DOA and I have a Yes Standard for the pow days . DOA is a great board but I find it a little too soft in the tips etc at times when i ride more aggressive and also looking for better edge hold and pop . I’ve heard lots of people say the Indoor Survival is better in those areas and just not sure if I should get the 156 or 155w . I wear a size 10.5 nitro Team Standard boot not sure if I really need a wide or not. The Doa felt a little narrow at times but looks like the Idoor is a little wider . Oh and I’m 5’10 and around 150 lbs . Thanks!
Hi Ian, thanks for your message.
With 10.5s, I personally wouldn’t go wide with the Indoor Survival. It’s already fairly wide in its regular widths. The 156 is 267mm at the inserts, which I’d be very comfortable with in 10.5s. Length-wise, I think the 156 should work well for you as well. For reference, I measured the DOA 156 as 262mm at the inserts. While 5mm doesn’t sound like a lot, in terms of snowboard width, it’s quite a bit – essentially equivalent to half a boot size.
Hope this helps with your decision
Greetings from Salt Lake City Nate,
My stats:
height: 6’3”
Weight: 190
Boot size: 12
Vans OG BOA
Bindings: UNION FORCE CLASSIC
Angles:15/15
23” stance
I do have a little bit of knock knees when I put my feet together my kneecap is towards my in step about an inch so sometimes I ride 18/15
I’ve been riding for 25 years or so and bounced around in sizes of boards, depending on the new technology that was out in the style of riding I was doing at the time.
With that said it’s been about five years and I’m in the market for a new board.
I’m currently riding Never Summer legacy 170cm.
I was doing a lot of powder riding at the time, but I wanna get back into more park mainly jump spins wall hits having fun on the runs. I’m trying to decide what is the shortest size of board I can go.
I’ve been looking at:
Never summer easy rider 160X
CAPITA indoor survival 161W
CAPITA DOA super 161W and 163W
What would you suggest be the shortest size I should go for more of a park spinning good pop feel?
Thank you a ton for your time
Justin
Hi Justin, thank for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 162/163. If you were going for something really park dedicated for playful riding and not hitting anything too big in terms of jumps, you could go as short as 156/157, IMO. But it sounds like you’d still want to have some stability for speed/carving in between? If I’m wrong about that you could look around that 157 mark, if you really just want super easy spins, butters, pop and aren’t intending on riding any powder with this board and not wanting to ride fast at all.
But with the assumption that you’re looking for more of an all-mountain-freestyle board and not a strictly park/freestyle board, I would look in and around that 159-161 range. So for Easy Rider, I think you’d be spot on with the 160X. Indoor Survival probably 161W, but I would also consider the 158W. For the Super DOA 161W – for what you want it for I wouldn’t go as long as the 163W. Again, you could even consider the 158W.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply. I got a CAPITA Indoor survival 161w.
It’s definitely a playful board that really gives back on mid to large hits..
With the new board and new bindings I’m playing around with my stance a bit.
I’ve noticed I feel more balanced at 12 degrees and 6-9 degrees rear.
I’ve been riding a 23” stance and seems a little off. Going to try a 22” stance to see if it helps.
What’s your opinion on stance?
15 years ago we rode 3 and 3 degrees with a wide stance in the park.
With all the technology in the snowboards these days people are saying a shorter stance.
When I measure from the ground to the knee it’s 22”.
Hi Justin, thanks for the update.
I think 22″ is worth trying if that’s your ground to knee measurement. My ground to knee is also 22″ and that is the most comfortable stance width I find. I’ll sometimes go out to around 23″ (usually for park, but can also help on icy days to have a bit of extra width) but any wider than that and I don’t tend to like it. I’ll also go narrower at times – to like 21.5″ but again, anything narrower than 21″ I don’t tend to enjoy.
For spins I find a narrower stance tends to make it easier to initiate rotations and maneuverability in general is easier. I find a wider stance helps with stability on landings and prefer it a little for butters too. 22″ for me is the sweet spot that is a great mix between them. And I find it the most comfortable. Everyone is different, but ground to knee length is a good place to start and definitely worth trying to see how it goes.
Hello Nate,
hope you’re doing well
Im considering the IS or the resort twin but im a bit unsure about sizing (between the 54 and 56). I’m 5’11 165lbs 9.5 boots.
Coming from a Yes typo 155 and I love how it rides but I want something a bit more stable/damp and with more pop. Am i looking to the right boards? since both the IS and RT are similar size wise, should i go 54 or 56?
Thank you
Hey Jose, thanks for your message.
Size-wise I would be leaning 154 for the Indoor Survival and it’s kind of 50/50 for the Resort Twin. That’s not to say that you’d be wrong to go to the 156 on either, but I’d be leaning 154 for you for the IS. I have ridden the IS in both 156 and 158 and definitely preferred the 156 (I’m 6’0″, 180lbs, size 9.5 to 10 boots). You’re not too different to me in terms of physical stats, but being that 15 pounds lighter, I’d be leaning 154. But again, I don’t think 156 would be wrong. But I’d be a little less willing to go 156 on the IS than the RT. I’d say 70/30 to go 154 over 156. For the RS, I’d say more like 50/50 between the 154 and 156.
RT 154 vs Typo 155, I’d say that you wouldn’t notice much more in terms of stability and dampness but you should feel a bit more pop with it. The 156 RT would give you a touch more stability/dampness. In terms of ease of riding, the RT is maybe not quite as easy to ride as the Typo, but it’s still pretty easy going and playful.
The IS 154 vs Typo 155, you would, IMO, feel a noticeable difference in stability and dampness. It’s not going to be worlds apart, but it is noticeable, in my experience. And definitely more pop overall.
In terms of pop, the Typo has the easiest to extract pop out of the 3, but the least total pop. The IS is the hardest to get the pop out of, but when you do put in the effort, it’s got the most pop of the 3 for sure. The RT is almost as easy to get popping as the Typo, but it’s got a little more total pop, but not as much as the IS, in my experience.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate, Armin here. I already wrote to you last year asking about the Nitro Team gullwing, however I was not able to find it.
I have continued to progress this year and I’m interested on the Capita indoor survival. Nowadays almost all I ridw is park and jumps, but I also want a board that I can enjoy on the resort (10days per year)
I think 156 would be fine but I do not want to be out of range because of my weight, and it may be too soft to jump (as happened to the other user, Diogo, in his comment).
195 lb, I’m 6.2′ and 10.5US boots.
So…I’m unsure between 156 and 158, both on sale at my local store, right now!. 70% park and jumps/ 30 resort
Appreciate any help.
Thanks in advance
Hi Armin, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161/162, but with this board and your style, I would size down from that. But I would go to 158 rather than 156. I don’t think you need to size down as much as to the 156 and it’s not a super wide board or anything, so it shouldn’t feel too wide, particularly given you’re sizing down a bit, with 10.5s. The 158 should handle the resort well and give you a bit more stability for jumps, but still be fine for other features in the park, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, Armin here again.
Sorry for the insistence.
Yesterday I went to my local store willing to buy the IS 158 ( in august it was closed for vacations). However, they have already sold it, I don’t know when..🤦🏻♂️ they only have 158w in stock. They have allowed me to put my boots over it – with my angulation and stance – to test the width, based on your article “How Important is Snowboard Width Sizing” . My boots OVERhang almost 2cm (my boots are 4cm bigger than my feet). They are holding the board for me until Friday.
Do you think I could choose the 158W? I’m going crazy since then: i’ve measured my feet and boots over and over, i’ve even drawn each board in CAD with their dimensions 😅 to compare to each other… my feet would be within the overhang/underhang parameters in both cases (158 VS 158w), not so much the boots. I don’t know if 158w will be too big a board for a practically freestyle use, or, otherwise, the extra width will increase the benefits of narrower board in this case, allowing me to be able to apply better pressure on presses doing jibbing…? I think I’m giving too much importance to everything, after all it’s only 5mm wider overall,
but I haven’t really been able to test very few boards in my life, and I don’t want to regret having the choice!
thank you very much for your patience.
Hi Armin
Apologies for the late reply and unfortunately a bit late for your Friday hold. In this case the difference between the wide and regular version isn’t huge, so I think you’d get away with the 158W. I think the 158 would be more optimal for you, but the 158W wouldn’t be wrong. It will add a bit of weight and likely make it a little trickier for butters and jibs, IMO, but it will give you more landing platform for landing jumps and landings off jibs. And it’s not so much bigger that it would feel massive overall, I wouldn’t imagine.
Hi Nate,
Don’t worry about the delay, I’m the one who should apologize for my insistence and thank you for your selfless help.
I wasn’t convinced with the wide width, so I decided to keep looking and keep going crazy with the width…until after literally scouring every place on the internet …. I finally found it on 158!
In few working days it will be in my possession. And hopefully it will be the definitive board with the perfect size for me (after the 1000 questions and guesses I’ve made).
Thank a lot again for all your advice.
You’re very welcome Armin. Glad you were able to find the 158! Hope it treats you well.
Hey Nate – love the site
Wanted to get your recommendation on sizing. 170 lbs, 5’8.5”, size 10-10.5 boot depending on brand. Do you think 154 or 156 for park and freestyle resort riding?
Thanks!
Hi AC, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157 but for this board for all-mountain-freestyle and park, I would drop it down to the 154, in this case.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
First of all thank you for your great work on this website. Love your reviews, they are a reference when it comes to fantasize about try boards, new material, adjusting guides….
After read a lot of reviews, forums.. I think I want this board.
I’m almost like you, 6.1′ and today around 195 lbs . Boots US11 (k2 boundary) and otherS 10.5(actually this is my size in all boots/shoes).
I am hesitating between size 158 and 158W. (308/260/308 vs 313/265/313) However, I see the waist width of the Indoor survival is wider than normal. The width of 158W seems excessive compared to other boards
According to your boards published in your article “How Important is Snowboard Width Sizing” I am around 260mm in any foot position.
I’m and intermediate rider, wanna use the board 60% park 40% resort, more or less. It’s enough 158 “regular”? Maybe I could dare with 156 ? I currently have a 155 soft park board, and with my weight, I think I’m too much at the limit, doing presses if I am a bit aggressive, I feel I bend it too much, and the board kick me out. But I also don’t want a board that feels big and heavy.
I’ve also been looking at the SB resort twing but it’s impossible to find anymore, and the Rome Agent, but honestly, the graphics are horrible this year.
thanks in advance!!
Hey Diego, thanks for your message.
I think the 158 is your best bet – and should be fine in terms of the width, whether in US11s or US10.5s. As you eluded to, the regular widths are wider than typical and for your boot size the regular width is the best bet, IMO. You could go 156, if you wanted it to be more of a dedicated park board, but otherwise I’d go 158. Unlikely you’ll find the 158 will feel big or heavy for you. Size-wise, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161/162, so going 158 is already sizing down a little, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Thanks for your reply. That’s what I needed to decide on the 158. I like the size 156, but, as I mentioned before, I already have a 155 park focused board and I’m looking for something a little more versatile. I think following your recommendation is the most correct thing to do.
thank you very much Nate!
I forgot to say too (and I’m done , for sure ^^’) that my main fear is to be “out of range” because of my weight, and the maximum suggested weight is up to 190lbs on the 156.
Until now, I thought it was an indication without much importance, but I experienced that it is quite important..
Thanks again
You’re very welcome Diogo. Hope the IS treats you well!
Hello Nate, I have the 2021 Indoor and would like your valuable advise comparing with the Burton FREETHINKER which is want to get. do you think Freethinker require more attention and effort for board to turn and carve? I read your review on the Freethinker and seems like its the type of board I am looking for. Can you give me a brief idea of how the Indoor compare with the freethinker. Thank you so much for your advise.
Hi Sam, thanks for your message.
I actually found it took a little less effort/attention. It’s still not something you can get too casual on. It’s a full camber board. But the torsional flex is pretty friendly and turns are a lot easier than I’d expected of it. So, IMO, either the same effort/attention or less.
As a general comparison, I would say (note this is comparing to the 2021 model – if you want to look at more of my review on the 2021 model, go to the bottom of this review and click on the grey box that says “PAST REVIEWS OF THE INDOOR SURVIVAL”) – then scroll down until you find the 2021 review (which is the bottom one)):
– Free Thinker a little better on a carve. And that’s across carving types – tighter carves and straighter carves at higher speeds
– Free Thinker, as I mentioned above a little easier on turn initiation
– Preferred FT for jumps, speed, spins, in trees, pretty much everything. Only thing really was the IS 2021 was easier to butter.
Most of this goes vs the 2024 model too and the 2023 model. But I did prefer to the 2024 model to both the 2023 and 2021 models though. I think it’s become a better board over the years, but would still prefer the Free Thinker.
To note, I bought the Deep Thinker (the more directional version of this) and it was a little stiffer to begin with, vs the demo model I previously tried, but after a few days and breaking it in a bit, it softened up into the board I remembered it as. I really look forward to getting out on my Deep Thinker again – a really fun board. Just noting this as the Free Thinker may be the same if/when you first buy it (most boards are a little stiffer when you first get them and take a few days to break in).
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, I’ve been looking at the Yes Basic Uninc (156W – I’m 165-170lbs and 10US) for park (big, medium, and small jump lines + jibbing) and all mountain riding (not much pow in Australia though).
However for the same price, I can grab an Indoor Survival (156).
From your reviews, both sound like great boards, and both would be a playful decks all around the mountain, yet still be great for all of the park.
Which board do you reckon is better?
Really appreciate any help!
Byron
Hi Byron, thanks for your message.
Both would definitely work for what you’re describing, IMO. Neither will be great in powder, but if you don’t see it that option, it shouldn’t be too big a thing.
Width-wise, they are very similar too, even thought the Basic Uninc is technically a wide board it’s narrow for a wide and the Indoor Survival is wide for a regular, so you’re looking at basically the same width at both waist and inserts and at the nose/tail. The IS does have more effective edge (121.1cm vs 118.5cm on the Basic Uninc), so it’s likely to feel a little bigger overall.
If you see a fair bit of icy conditions, the Basic Uninc is a little better in there. The Basic Uninc is also a little stiffer than the IS, but again, it’s not by a huge amount. But apart from those things and the sizing difference there’s not much in it, performance-wise.
Hope this helps
Size 11 boot and I weigh 210 pounds, 6’2″. What size would be best for me in this board? Thanks.
Hi Mike, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 163. As a more freestyle oriented board, I would size down a little from that, particularly given the effective edge on this board is quite high vs overall length. With 11s and this being wider in its regular widths than typical, I wouldn’t go wide in this case. Without any information about your riding style or ability level, I think the 160 would be your best bet.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi angry which board carving better. If you can say in order.salomon huck knife yes jackpot capita indoor survival. Effective edge huck knife and indoor is longer but jackpot it’s wider. Iam 65 kg 166cm us 9 boot
Hi Theofanis
Thanks for your message and hope you’re doing well. I’m not angry though – in fact quite calm and relaxed this morning. If you were looking to ask the Angry one, you can compare his opinion to mine, but this is the order I would put them in for carving:
– Indoor Survival
– Huck Knife
– Jackpot
But in saying that, they are all really close, and hard to pick between them for carving, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I was wondering how you would compare this to the Resort Twin. Both, specs-wise, are very similar based on Capita’s catalog, except for the profile in the tips (rocker for the RT, flat for the IS).
Was there much difference in the way they rode?
I ride a small mountain where I do a lot of park riding. Both seem like fine choices for that so any info on how they differ (even slightly) is welcome.
Thanks for the reviews!
Hi Philôn
Thanks for your message.
They feel surprisingly different, given their similarities. The Resort Twin is more playful and quicker edge-to-edge. It’s easier to butter, a little more friendly for jibs and better in trees (IMO). With the Indoor Survival being better on a carve, a little more stable at speed and more stable in crud/chunder etc. Those were the main differences I felt between them from riding them.
And I found the Indoor Survival to be a little stiffer. Not by a whole lot, but subtly stiffer overall.
Specs-wise, the main differences (maybe the only differences?) are:
– The camber profile, as you’ve already mentioned, but in addition to the flat vs rocker sections, the Resort Twin’s rocker starts earlier than the flat of the Indoor Survival, which can make a bigger difference than you’d think – the flat sections on the IS are hardly noticeable – it feels more like traditional camber. But the rocker is very noticeable in the Resort Twin.
– The Indoor Survival has a “Titanal Centerline Booster” in the middle of its core. This is essentially a metal bar running down the length of the board. This is likely the main reason it feels more stable, damper and a little stiffer.
– The Indoor Survival has the “Quantum Drive Base” vs the “Power Drive Base” on the Resort Twin. Essentially the Resort Twin’s base is a cross between a sintered and extruded base, and the IS’s base is a full sintered base. Likely the main reason behind why it costs more.
Hope this helps
Thank you for the very detailed response. Highly appreciated.
That helps a lot. Cheers!
You’re very welcome Philon. Happy riding!
Hello, any suggestion for bindings. I’m considering Union Ultras, Strata or new Force. Which one would you recommend. Thank you.
Hey Nikola
Thanks for your message. I would be leaning Strata. The Strata and the Force are the best flex matches, IMO, but I would go Strata over Force for the better board feel, with the assumption that you’d be using this board for freestyle stuff, at least some of the time. If not, then the new Force would be a great option. The Ultra would work too, for sure. It’s just not quite as good a flex match, IMO, but it would still be a good match to the IS, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Had a Capita Outsiders in a 154 and found it too stiff. I know this has the same camber profile and rated softer by Capita so I’m interested.
I want one board that is soft enough to butter and be playful. But also stable enough that can handle some speed and night time boarding at a resort when they don’t groom so the hills get choppier.
I’m 510, 165 lbs and boot size 9, would a 152 be too small for me? Or do I have to get the 154?
Worried the 154 won’t be soft enough for my liking but the 152 might not be stable enough either.
For additional consideration, I have the Proto Slinger in a 153 and find it too soft to handle speed or night time boarding.
Thanks
Hey Mark
Thanks for your message.
It’s definitely softer than the Outsiders, IMO. Not drastically, but noticeably. I felt the Indoor Survival at 5.5/10 flex and the Outsiders at 6.5/10 flex.
Size-wise, if you were going to be using it predominantly for freestyle, then I think the 152 would work, but I think the 154 is the better bet, given you want to have a balance between being playful/buttery but also stable at speed. That said, it depends on how much more stable you want it to be vs the Proto Slinger. It’s very noticeably more stable and stiffer than the Proto Slinger, so even in the 152 it will give you noticeably better stability than the Proto Slinger, IMO. So, if you wanted to just bump that stability up enough, without loosing too much playfulness, then the 152 is doable. If you want to more significantly bump up that stability, then the 154 is likely the better option.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate,
Thanks so much for your response.
I’m going to provide a bit more info. I also have the Greats in a 154cm, I used your review and you actually responded to me in that thread when I bought it. I current own that, the Proto as my park board in a 153 and a Orca as a powder board in a 150. The Orca I got at 40% off so it’s more of a luxury, I don’t get too many powder days in the east coast so I barely use it.
I like the Orca for its purpose. I also like the Greats for its purpose although it would be nicer if it was a touch softer. The Proto unfortunately I find too niche, yes it’s soft and playful but it slows me down when I start doing groomers and it’s terrible imo when the it gets icier or the snow hardens up during night conditions.
I feel like I can get a 152 cm Indoor and still have a three board rotation. But if I got the 154, I feel like it would replace the Greats as well and it would be in-between the Proto and Greats in terms of playfullyness and stability based on your reviews.
Can you tell me how the Indoor in a 152 and 154 would compare to the Greats 154 in terms of playfullyness and stability please?
Hi Mark
I would say that size comparable would be the 156 Indoor Survival and the 154 Greats, given the width of the Greats. Even though the Greats 154 is still wider than the Indoor Survival 156, the IS 156 has more effective edge, so I think they even out in that sense. So, I would say that the 154 Indoor Survival should feel smaller than the Greats 154. But they are probably still going to feel a similar flex. I would say, for me, the Greats 156 feels like a 6/10, the 154 probably more of a 5.5/10 and the Indoor Survival 156 a 5.5/10. So the 154 IS is likely to feel a touch softer than your 154 Greats, but it’s not going to be by a whole lot, IMO. So, in that sense, if you’re going to be having it in the same Quiver as the 154 Greats and want it to be more playful than the Greats, then I think the 152 is the ticket. It still won’t be as soft and playful as the Proto Slinger and will still give you more stability. I would still use the Greats for icy days though. That thing is my icy conditions go-to, for sure.
Hey Nate,
Thanks again for the detailed responses as usual, always so helpful. I did have two final follow up questions.
1) At the end of your response, did you mean to say a 152 IS would be soft and playful like the Proto but also more stable?
2) There is one other board I’m considering and that’s the regular Salomon Huck Knife in a 153. You had both the IS and HK rated as a 5.5 flex but the HK in the freestyle category and the IS in the mountain-freestyle category. I know the HK changed a bit this year to increase effective edge to be a bit better at carving. Your review has them similar in alot of categories but I noticed you had HK rated higher at buttering despite being rated the same for speed. I also noticed the 153 HK would have more effective edge and also be a tiny bit wider than a 152 IS.
How would you rate them in terms of pop, buttering, speed and stability?
With the 154 Greats being a 5.5-6 flex I’m ideally looking for something in the 4-5 flex (ideally close to a 4.5) with either the IS 152 or HK 153. Sounds like the HK would match what I want more with the increased effective edge/width and buttering while also being as stable as the IS and similar in carving ability.
Unfortunately can’t demo them myself so have to rely on videos and help from reviewers to make the best choice possible. Definitely picking up one of these two soon as the sales are starting so eagerly waiting your response before I make a final choice.
Thanks again for all your help!
Hi Mark
1. Yes I meant the 152 IS. It wouldn’t be as soft/playful as the 153 Proto Slinger, but more so than the 154 IS and the 154 Greats. But certainly more stable than the 153 Proto Slinger.
2. I found the 156 HK and 156 IS to be very similar in terms of carving and speed but the HK a little easier to butter. While the overall flex I found to be very similar, the HK has an easier flex in the tip and tail. In terms of pop, I’d say they have similar total pop, but with the HK it’s easier to access that pop.
Flex-wise, I’d say going for the IS in 152 or the HK in 153, you’d be looking at probably a flex feel of around 5/10.
Hi Nate,
Debating between the Capita Indoor Survival and Ride Shadowban (2024s).
Tried looking for a review from you on the Shadowban but couldn’t find an in depth one.
I currently ride a GNU Headspace. Looking for a board that can carve better, limit chatter, more stable, yet still pops well and does flat tricks.
Thanks!
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
The Indoor Survival, IMO, carves better and is damper than the Headspace and more stable at speed. And has good pop. You have to put in a bit more effort to extract the pop than you do with the Headspace, but it gives back a little more when you do put that effort in to extract it.
The Shadowban (which we haven’t tested yet, which is why we don’t have a review for it), assuming it’s similar to the old Wild Life, which it seems to be, is a mellower board. The Indoor Survival is fairly aggressive. The Shadowban also a little more directional and more all-mountain-freeride than all-mountain-freestyle, IMO. Not sure, if you got my reply on the 2023 Ride snowboards overview post, but there is a reply over there too, if you wanted to also check that out.
Hey Nate, thanks for all the reviews. I was about to buy the indoor survival 161w and just saw they’re sold out. I am 6′ 3″ 190 lbs with size 14 burton moto BOAs. I mainly ride slushy park in socal most of the year but would like a board that can handle all-mountain. Is the 158w indoor survival too small? I was thinking about the resort twin 160 but I am afraid it might be too narrow so I was interested in the 159 powder twin for the width but I only get a couple days of powder every season. I would like to get a Capita because I can get a discount with them. Also thinking about the 161 w DOA but I am really not sure. I just want an all mountain/freestyle that will fit my boots. Any response is appreciated!
Hi Max
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162, so I think the 161W would have been the best size, if you had access to any. The 158W wouldn’t be tiny for you or anything, but I think the 161W would have been better.
Unfortunately the Resort Twin is going to be too narrow, IMO. The DOA in 161W isn’t really any wider than the 160 Resort Twin, so I also think that’s going to be too narrow.
With 14s, I think the Powder Twin would be a really good bet, because of its width. It’s best suited to powder freestyle, but felt fine on groomers and in the park too. Besides the Indoor Survival 161W, it’s the only all-mtn-freestyle Capita board that I can see being wide enough for your boots. That said, if you’ve been on narrower boards and haven’t had any boot drag issues, then you might be able to get away with the 160 Resort Twin or 161W Doa. But you’d be looking at around 7.3cm of total overhang (or around 3.6cm per edge) – with a zero degree back binding angle, which is a lot. With angles like +15/-15, you can srub off about 1cm of overhang, but you’d still be looking at 3.1cm of overhang per edge, which is more than I’d be comfortable with personally.
Hope this helps with your decision
I appreciate the response! I think I’m going with the 162 powder twin. I have had narrower boards and the toe drag bothers me so this will be a safe bet. Thanks again.
You’re very welcome Max. Hope it treats you well and hope you have a great season! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to rider it.
Hey, Nate. Nate here… you think I could get away with the 156 Indoor at 175lb and 10.5 boots (Adidas Acerra)? Or should I jump to the 155w, 158, or 158w?
Hey Nate!
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I think you’d be fine on the 156. Width-wise you should be all good. This board is wider than average in it’s regular width and you’re still looking at a 269mm back insert width on the 156 – which should be plenty for a 10.5 – particularly the Acerra which is really low profile. Even with a flat back binding angle and with some deep carves, I imagine you’d be good with the width. I mean if you were riding with a 0 degree back binding angle and hard core eurocarving, then maybe you’d have to go wide, but otherwise you’re better off on a regular width version of this board, IMO.
In terms of length, if you could also let me know your height just to confirm. Weight is more important for length sizing, but I do like to factor in height as well, because it does have a leverage factor. Also if you can just tell me a little about how you’d be riding this board – i.e. park? trees? Bombing? powder? etc – anything about your riding – as that can influence your length as well. But most likely the 156 will work.
Hope this helps
PS: Great name 🙂
Thanks much, Nate! I’m 5’11. This is just gonna be my groomer days board for buttering, sidehits, pretending I’m young enough to go through the park still, some carving, etc. I have a quiver of boards for deep days, trees, carving, etc (K2 Special Effects, Jones Mind Expander, Spring Break Powder Racer), so I mainly want the Indoor for days here in CO where we don’t have any new snow and are just doing laps with the boys messing around the whole mountain. Been riding camber since 2004ish and I like the more traditional-leaving profile of the Indoor. Thanks again!
Hey Nate
In that case, then yeah, I think the 156 is your best bet.
Hello Nate can you tell me what do you mean by transform the base of this board by the grind? Do you mean detune the the edge close to the contact point?
Hi Sam
Thanks for your message.
By that I mean to get a base grind to flatten out the structure in the base. You could potentially add a structure back into with a stone grind, but if you’re not enjoying the pattern of the structure in this board, then I would get a different pattern – or just go with a non-patterned base. I didn’t like the structure in the base on this board – or on the DOA – and I’ve heard from others not liking it either.
This is different to detuning the contact points. Though you could do that as well. Detuning the contact points is just about changing the angle of the edge to reduce any kind of catchy feeling from the contact points. A base grind grinds down and flattens out the whole base – and has nothing to do with the edges.
But to let you know, I’m no expert in this area though! I leave this kind of stuff to snowboard techs. I do my own waxing, because I have to wax a lot of boards. But I get others to do edge sharpening, detuning, grinding etc for me.
Hope this helps
Hello Nate, I wear a boot size 44 (EU) and I’m going to buy this board size 154, do you think it’s too small for my foot? unfortunately there is no wide version 😥
witch duck stance (+15/-15) boots should overhang about 2,2 cm
Hi Gianluca
Thanks for your message.
Can you let me know the make and model of your boots (and year if you know it). Euro sizes to mondo tend to vary, depending on brand. Some boots are more low profile than others as well. So depending on the brand and boot, it could be doable. If 2.2cm of toe overhang and 2.2cm of heel overhang is accurate, then you’re likely to be OK. If you’re doing really deep carves (like eurocarving), then it might be pushing it, but otherwise should be OK. But if you can give me more info on the boots, that would be great.
Hope this helps
Hi and thank you very much for the reply! the boots I have are of a fairly poor brand (crazy creek) and I don’t even know which model is 😂 in fact I would like to change them shortly 😬 the Mondo size is 28.0
Hi Gianluca
Having no experience with that brand, I don’t know how low profile/bulky they would be, but with a mondo of 28, if they’re not too bulky, you probably get away with it with those binding angles. Particularly if you’re not going to be doing any crazy carving.
thank you very much for the advice! I am at a beginner/intermediate level and my goal is to get on the track and a little freestyle, no crazy carving 😂😂😂 Thanks again for everything! I will proceed with the purchase of this board then 😁👍🏻
You’re very welcome Gianluca – hope you have an awesome season!
Any recommendations for bindings to go with the board?
Hi Tucker
Thanks for your message.
I would be looking at something in the 5/10 to 6/10 flex range. And something with good board feel, assuming you’ll be doing a fair bit of freestyle stuff – ollies, buttering etc on the board. So something from one of the following, with good board feel within that flex range is a good bet, IMO.
>>Top 5 All Freestyle Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
Note also, that this review is for the 2021 model and that the 2022 model changed a bit, so it hasn’t been updated for the 2022 model, as I didn’t ride it and it changed (I’ll only update a review to the latest model if it’s the same or very similar as the most recent model I tested (or of course if I tested the 2022 model)).
But as far as the specs suggest, the board is the same flex – so the flex for bindings would still stand – and if you’re looking for freestyle, I’d still want some decent board feel.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Skinny guy, 130 pounds, US 9 in Adidas Response ADV boots, park rider wanting something light for jumps and spins. Size 150 the way to go?
Also, not sure if you’ve got to try the new season’s version but if you have, is there anything significantly different?
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your message.
The 2022 model is a bit different – quite a few changes for the latest model. I tried to get on the 2022 model, but unfortunately couldn’t get on it. Check out my 2022 Capita preview to see a summary of the changes (scroll to the bottom section for the changes to the Indoor Survival). Note that the Indoor Survival for 2022 is a little less freestyle oriented than the 2021 version.
I think the 150 would be a good bet for you as a bit of a do-it-all kind of board, that you use for everything with a bit of park. For this particular board I’d probably try to go a bit smaller (if they had that option), if you were using it predominantly as your park board. You may find it on the stiffer side in the 150. Not super stiff by any means, but depends how you typically ride the park. If you’re sending it for really big air most of the time and rarely hit the jib line, then going a little stiffer is a good idea. But if you’re doing more butter tricks, jibs, smaller jumps etc, then you might find it on the stiffer side in the 150 for your weight. I’ve found a lot of lighter rider’s tend to prefer something a little softer flexing, but not always, so your personal preference on flex will come into play here. I think if you like to go big and like something that’s more medium flex, then the 150 Indoor Survival could work.
If you were looking for something a little softer and more buttery/jibby, then the Capita Scott Steven’s Pro is a good bet or the Ultrafear if you wanted the option of going shorter. Not as poppy/good for jumps as the Indoor Survival though (IMO).
If you can’t find the 2021 model of the Indoor Survival but still wanted to go mid-flex, then the Asymulator is worth looking at (and even lighter).
Some other non-Capita options that could work:
– Never Summer Proto Slinger 146 or 149 – gives you the option to go smaller – it’s softer flexing (if that’s the way you wanted to go) and whilst it’s not full camber, it’s camber dominant
– Burton Kilroy Twin 148 – full camber, but softer flexing. I haven’t weighed this one, so I’m not sure what it weighs on the scales but it felt light to ride to me
– Niche Wraith 149 – this one felt normal in terms of weight to me, but otherwise could fit the bill. It’s predominantly camber, but the camber isn’t as pronounced as on something like the Kilroy Twin or Proto Slinger (not a good thing or bad thing necessarily, but something to be aware of)
Could also look into Salomon The Villain 147 and Salomon Sleepwalker 148 – I haven’t ridden them, but Salomon boards tend to be light.
Definitely not saying don’t go Indoor Survival, but there’s some other options, if you felt the Indoor Survival isn’t quite what you’re looking for in the 150.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for replying!
The heads up is much appreciated.
I’ve now taken a look at the 21-22 catalogue and it seems Asymulator is rated with a flex of 6 compared to the Indoor Survival at 5. The new 22 Indoor Survival also looks to have been updated to the same core, glass and base as the Asymulator while being narrower with a shorter side cut (150 IS vs 152 Asymulator), reportedly lighter compared to 2021…with that switch up, maybe the difference in weight won’t be as much as last year? Then again of course a titanal booster is worlds apart from flax ones…
Thanks for the food for thought in any case. Maybe I just gotta chow down some burgers and protein shakes
You’re very welcome Andrew.
Yeah could well be lighter – was already pretty light anyway – anything Capita is always lighter than average, but sounds like it could be lighter than 2021 model.
Adding a few pounds would certainly open up your options size-wise, but there are definitely some good options still.
Hey Nate, I’m looking into getting either this or the outer space living. I consider myself a intermediate rider who enjoys buttering and hitting some small to medium size jumps. Currently I ride my old burton uninc 156, I wear a boot size 11 and weigh about 180. Which board and size would you recommend? Thanks.
Hi Matt
Thanks for your message.
Both would definitely work. Both similar in terms of jumps and butterability. The OSL a little better for riding all-mountain – and if you’re going to be hitting powder on this board at all, I would be leaning OSL. But for buttering and small to medium jumps, there’s not much in it. I would say maybe the Indoor Survival has a little more pop overall, but the OSL that pop is a little easier to extract (less effort to extract that pop). That said, the pop from the Indoor Survival isn’t hard to extract or anything.
Size-wise, I would say 157W for the OSL, but you could also ride the 155W, if you prefer something a little shorter – going shorter will make it more buttery, more agile at slower speeds, but less stable. For the Indoor Survival probably 158 or even 156, but both sizes are probably risking it in terms of being too narrow. That said, if you had no issues with drag on your 156 Uninc, you probably won’t have any issues on the Indoor Survival either. If you could also let me know your height, that would be helpful too. I size predominantly on weight and boot size, but still like to take height into account as well.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision