The Capita Mega Merc is the kind of snowboard that you need to take control of and push. If you're just going along for the ride, you'll soon feel out of control. This board requires purposeful riding with intent and a certain amount of energy from its rider.
All that said, I felt it to have mellowed out versus previous experience I've had with the board, which made it feel more well rounded to me. But it's still more aggressive than average and still not suited to a casual or playful rider.
In this review, I will take a look at the Mega Merc as an aggressive all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Mega Merc a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other aggressive all-mtn snowboard snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Capita Mega Merc
Price: $949
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (6.5/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Rating Score: 91.5/100
Compared to other Men’s Aggressive All-Mountain Boards
Of the 19 current model aggressive all-mtn snowboards that we tested:
❄️ The Mega Merc ranked 2nd out of 19
Overview of the Mega Merc'S Specs
Check out the tables for the Mega Merc’s specs and available sizes.
STYLE:
aggressive all-mtn
PRICE:
$949 - BUYING OPTIONS
Ability Level:
flex:
feel:
DAMPNESS:
SMOOTH /SNAPPY:
Playful /aggressive:
Edge-hold:
camber profile:
HYBRID CAMBER
HYBRID CAMBer - Capita's "Resort V2"
SHAPE:
setback stance:
SETBACK 12.5mm (0.5")
BASE:
Sintered- Capita's "MEGADRIVE™ XT"
weight:
FELT A LITTLE LIGHTER THAN Normal
Camber:
3.5mm
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
153 | 253 | 100-160 | 54-72 |
155 | 255 | 120-180 | 54-81 |
157 | 257 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
159 | 259 | 140-200 | 63-90 |
161 | 261 | 160-220+ | 72-99+ |
156W | 261 | 120-180 | 54-81 |
158W | 263 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
160W | 265 | 140-200+ | 63-90+ |
Who is the Mega Merc Most Suited To?
The Mega Merc is best suited to a more aggressive rider who needs a board that can handle aggressive riding and higher speeds well. As you'll learn below (if you read the details), I felt like it has mellowed out from my previous experience with earlier models, but it's still more aggressive than average and can handle a lot.
This would be a great one-board-quiver for that rider who likes to ride more aggressively. It's really super versatile.
But that's only if you're an advanced to expert rider - or at least high end intermediate bordering on advanced. To get everything out of this board to make it feel versatile, you'll need to have a certain level of technique.
Would also make a very good addition to a quiver as its daily driver and would pair really well with a freestyle/park board and/or something more mellow in general and/or a more freeride/powder oriented board.
TEST/REVIEW DetailS FOR THE Mega Merc
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mega Merc is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Capita Mega Merc 2025, 157cm (257mm waist width)
Date: March 6, 2024
Powder
The Mega Merc felt good in the patches that I had. It should stand up to deeper powder OK, but not likely to be amazing. A little above average I would say.
Its powder aiding qualities include rocker in the profile before the tip and tail, a directional twin shape and a small stance setback.
Carving
The Mega Merc felt less invincible at speed and more forgiving compared to the last time I rode it. But it was still something that felt great laying down deep aggressive carves on.
For long radius, high speed carves, I felt the Black Snowboard of Death (BSOD, which I also rode on the same day) was better, which wasn't the case in the past, but for more moderate speed, shorter sharper carves, the Mega Merc had it over the previous model I rode and over the BSOD. It may have been that I didn't have the physical strength to access it before, but it just seemed to have this real spring out of carves and turns at more moderate speeds that I couldn't get out of it before.
It's still good for high speed carves, don't get me wrong and it favors higher speed carves over slower speed anything. But it's a little more well rounded now. It's lost some of it's high speed carving prowess but that felt like it was distributed to slower, less aggressive carving, to give it an overall more well rounded feel. But certainly still favors more aggressive riding on a whole.
Turning
Ease of Turning/Slashing: And some of that new found forgiveness has also allowed the Mega Merc to be an easier turner. Turn initiations were a little easier physically and technically. It still prefers carves, but feels more versatile in its ability to ride better slower and less aggressively than it used to.
Maneuverability at slow speeds: Again, this is an area I felt it was better at, but overall still prefers higher speeds.
Catchiness: Still not totally catch free but less catchy than before and less catchy than I found the BSOD.
Speed
Still nice and stable at high speeds and felt fast overall and the base had some good glide to it. But it didn't feel as invincible at speed as it did previously. It's not limitless, but can handle a lot of speed, nonetheless.
Uneven Terrain
Crud/Chunder: Nice and stable in crud and chunder, but again, it does have it's limits and isn't immune to being bucked around. Part of that is, what I detected as, its softer flex and partly that this board is just super light!
Trees/Bumps: It's still not a tree bunny, I wouldn't say, but the improvement I felt in it's maneuverability at slow speeds translated into it feeling better in trees to how I've felt it previously. And should be decent with powder in there too.
Jumps
Wow! For me, that feeling of the board overall not being as rigid, seems to have unlocked some pretty epic spring/pop in this board.
Pop: Still something you have to muscle a bit to access its pop, but not as much as I felt I had to previously and now that I feel like I'm able to access more of it, it has this really nice pop to it. It feels springy and lively. I was rather surprised when I measured the board after riding it, that the highest point of camber was only 3.5mm. I don't know where that pop comes from, but it's pretty epic!
And because it's so light you get full value for any effort you put in.
Approach: It's still favors stability over maneuverability, but it's got a better balance between the two now, which was another reason why this board felt a lot better for jumps than I'd personally experienced previously.
Landing: I found I could absolutely stomp landings on this thing. It was quite a thrilling board to land on when you got that feeling when you just nailed the landing. But it was also not too unforgiving when I didn't get the landing quite right.
Side-hits: It was a lot of fun on sidehits. I'd still prefer a little more maneuverability and easier access pop, but was still really good, particularly for more open, easy to access side hits.
Small jumps/Big jumps: You can still go real big on this and I would still say that large jumps are where it feels best and I can imagine it wouldn't have any trouble handling XL jumps (I only test up to L). Fine for smaller jumps too as well.
Switch
Transitions were easier than in the past and overall nothing too bad. You couldn't be completely away with the fairies and transition away - there was some concentration on technique needed - but it wasn't something that felt like I had to really focus on so as not to catch an edge when transitioning.
And when riding in the opposite direction it felt good. Quite similar to riding it forwards, but with the challenges that you get riding a board in your unnatural direction, if you're not completely ambidextrous.
Spins
Setups and landings felt good. Setups weren't the easiest ever I've felt on a snowboard - there was some chance of catching an edge, like with transitions in switch - but it was fine and better than I felt it previously and better than I felt the BSOD.
Not super easy to finish a spin on the ground, for when you under rotate, but doable. Again, a little easier than I found the BSOD and previous models.
It's nice and light, so the actual rotations felt effortless - and that springy poppy feeling this board gives you meant that getting air, even without anything to launch off was pretty easy. And even though it rotated quickly in the air, it never felt like it want to over-rotate after landing.
Jibbing
It felt better here than previously and better than the BSOD - it wasn't something I feared taking on jibs. But still nothing that I found was the best/easiest for jibs. But stronger jibbers should be able to handle it OK. But it's not what I would say is well suited to jibbing overall.
Butters
You've still gotta put in a bit of muscle to get the nose and tail pressing. A little easier than I felt it in the past and vs the BSOD, but only subtly so. But it wasn't something that I couldn't press - and it locked in nicely once you got it there. And definitely not going to over-press - at least not for me.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
| FACTOR | Rating (/5) | Weighted |
|---|---|---|
| Speed | 4 | 16/20 |
| Carving | 4.5 | 18/20 |
| Turns | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Jumps | 4.5 | 13.5/15 |
| Powder | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Crud | 4 | 8/10 |
| Trees | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
| Switch | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Spins | 4 | 4/5 |
| TOTAL (after normalizing): | 91.5/100 |
Not trying to sound like a cracked record, but to sum up, the Mega Merc felt to me like it had mellowed out a bit from my previous experience with it. It's still more aggressive than the average board and still something that feels best when riding it faster and being more aggressive with it.
But it's now stripped out some of its top speed performance and distributed it to make it better at slower speeds and a little more forgiving overall. It felt like a more well rounded ride to me overall, but not quite as bullet proof when pushing it hell for leather.
I personally preferred it like this and found that I discovered a spring/pop in it, that I just couldn't find in it before, at least not to the same extent.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
To learn more about the Mega Merc, or if you're ready to buy, or if you just want to research prices and availability, check out the links below.
To check out some other aggressive all-mtn snowboard options, or to see how the Mega Merc compares to others, check out our top rated aggressive all-mtn snowboards by clicking the button below.
Hi Nate,
Such a great review! You’re doing a great job. Every time I’m choosing a new board, I go to your tier list to look for something that fits me well.
This time I’m trying to find a more aggressive board to complement my Burton Skeleton Key. I love how it behaves in deep snow and its surfy nature.
But since I don’t live close to the mountains, I need to be lucky to find fresh powder during the ~15 days a year I get to ride.
I’m looking for a do-it-all board that’s still capable in fresh snow. I’d say I’m a high intermediate/advanced snowboarder, and I want a board that will let me progress further.
Most of the time I ride groomers, doing some carves, trying a few side hits, occasionally hitting the snowpark—and of course, I go for powder whenever possible!
I’m currently deciding between the Burton Deep Thinker and the Capita Mega Mercury (or the classic Mercury).
I’m a bit worried that the Deep Thinker might feel too similar to my Skeleton Key. Don’t get me wrong—I really like it—but I feel like on groomers it’s a bit slow and doesn’t turn as snapy as I’d prefer.
Since I already have the Skeleton Key, I recon that I don’t really need a second board that would feel quite similar.
I also can’t decide between the Mega Mercury and the regular Mercury—are they very different?
What would you recommend? Or maybe another board comes to your mind that would suit my style — perhaps the Capita Kazu Kokubo Pro?
Thank you in advance!
Hi Pawel, thanks for your message.
The Mega Merc is a little stiffer than the regular Merc, but not as much as it was when it first came out. It’s got a bit more energy too – snappier, poppier – and quite a bit lighter on the scales – though on snow I found their weight feel very similar. Probably partly due to the Mega Merc being a bit stiffer/damper – that typically contributes to a board feeling a little heavier than the scales might suggest, but overall it still feels lighter than the normal board, in my experience.
I find the Deep Thinker to be a snappier turner than the Skeleton Key and is quite a different feel. The Deep Thinker is quite a bit lighter and narrower, which likely adds to the snap you get from it. It’s not as damp as the Skeleton Key or the Mega Merc or regular Merc, but I’d say it’s the snappiest turner of the 4. But definitely get that you might want to go a different direction.
My instinct says Mega Merc over the regular Merc, but I think both would work well and whether or not the difference is big enough to justify the price rise is up to you.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate! thank you for another amazing review.
Currently i own a Capita BSOD 159, Capita SB Resort Twin 156, Yes Typo 158, Yes Shifter 154, Burton Deep thinker 157. 6′ 158 pounds 9.5 boot. Im considering this in a 157
I know i don’t need this board but i want it(also considering the regular merc but i can get them around the same price). Im looking for something that sits in between my BSOD and SB resort twin. Currently the deep thinker kind of does that but im considering replacing it with this board because of the faster base and im really liking the way Capitas ride. Would this board sit in the middle of the bsod and sb resort twin in terms of how easy it is to handle/turn and dampness at speed? How does it compare to the deep thinker? Thank you!
Hi Meddy, good to hear from you again.
I would say that it does sit between the BSOD and Resort Twin but closer to the BSOD overall. Definitely closer to BSOD than Resort Twin in terms of ease of handling/turns and in terms of dampness at speed. I would say it’s a very similar flex to the BSOD, but it’s not as “locked-in” feeling, making it a little easier to handle/turn. Definitely more damp than the SB Resort Twin, but not quite to the BSOD, but closer to it. It’s definitely a snappier feeling vs the BSOD’s more smooth feeling, so inn that way it’s kind of more similar to the SB Resort Twin – not quite as snappy as the Resort Twin, in my experience, but closer to it than it is to the BSOD in that sense.
Vs the Deep Thinker, the Mega Merc is certainly damper, in my experience. I would say that the Deep Thinker is a little snappier still, but Mega Merc not too far off in that department. Mega Merc still not as easy to turn as the Deep Thinker, in my experience, but I did find it easier than the BSOD.
Hi Nate! I love your reviews! I had a question about the mega Merc sizing. I’m 5’6 150 and wear size 8 boots. Would you recommend the MM in 153 or 155? Thank you!
Hi Colin, thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain” length at around 153, so I think the 153 is your best bet, especially with size 8 boots.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, do you feel this one butters a little better than the regular mercury ?
Thank you
Hi Olivier
Better? Yeah I’d say so overall (but with a caveat).
Easier? No. It takes more effort, more leaning into it to get the nose and tail pressing.
But if you’re strong (technically and physically) with buttering, I think the extra spring when bouncing out of a press and the loackability, once you can get it to that point, are a little better.
Personally I still prefer the Mercury, as it’s easier to do and I’m not particularly good at butters and while I’m fairly well conditioned, I wouldn’t say I’m super athletic or anything. I would say this: the average rider (both in terms of technical ability and physical ability) will likely prefer the regular Mercury. Those who are stronger and/or better technically would likely prefer the Mega Merc.
I spoke with a pro rider last season and he was saying he preferred a bit of extra stiffness for butters over a softer flexing tip/tail, but he was literally specifically conditioned for snowboarding, rode A LOT in a season and was in his prime physically. For most of us mere mortals, it’s not the same! But If you are technically a really advanced rider and physically strong, then I think you’d likely prefer the Mega Merc overall.
Hope this helps
Thanks a lot for the detailed answer, really helpful
best regards
You’re very welcome Olivier. Hope you have a great season!
Hi Nate,
I saw a Capita Megamerc 158W
Im 6′-0” 175 lbs and im wearing ride jackson 10.5 US
Would it be too big for me ?
Thank you
Hi Samuel, thanks for your message. And apologies for the late reply – been working to get the 24/25 reviews out and updating stuff (super late this year!).
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159/160, so in terms of length, I think it’s fine. It’s the width that’s on the big side for you, IMO. With 10.5s, it’s not super wide or anything. It’s the combination of length and width that make it borderline, IMO. But I wouldn’t say it’s out of range, or massive for you or anything. It’s just on the bigger side of a good range, if that makes sense.
Hope this helps (if it’s not too late!)
Hi Nate.
Do you think the 160 wide would work on my 44.5 Photon step on snowboard boot or would it be too wide?
If not between 159 and 162, which one do you recommend? I weigh 85 kilos and am 1.88 tall.
thank you 😉
Hi Javier
I don’t think the 160W would be too wide for your feet and 160 is a good length for you, IMO. But based on your comment on the Assassin Pro review, it sounds like you’ve ridden regular width boards without issue and liked the 159 size. The Mega Merc in 160W will feel wide compared to what you’re used to, if you’ve been riding a 159 regular width board. If you haven’t had boot drag issues with your 159 Assassin Pro, then you won’t with a 159 Mega Merc. So, if that’s the case, I’d be leaning towards the 159. You could do 161 as well, but it sounds like you like the 159 length, so that’s what I’d be leaning towards, assuming you are comfortable with the width.
muchas gracias”¡¡
de nada
The 159 has a width of 25.9 and the 161 26.1, both of which I think would work for my 44.5 boot, don’t you think? I think the 160w (26.5) is too wide…
thank you
Hi Javier
I wouldn’t say it’s too wide for your boot size, but I’d personally go with the narrowest you can get on without boot drag. So if you’re confident you can get on the regular width, then that’s what I would choose, in most cases.
Thanks Nate. Stop when the jones storm wolf review ;))
If in doubt between the capita mega merc 159 or 161, both would work for me, I’m sure. I have driven gnu mullair 161 2 seasons and very well.. Which of the 2 measurements do you recommend :)?
thank you, looking forward to reading you
Hi Javier
I would say the 161 is the most optimal size for you. If you’ve preferred to go a little shorter in the past (apart from your Mullair), then the 159 is also well within your range, if you wanted to go for that. Ultimately I would recommend the 161, but the 159 certainly wouldn’t be a bad choice.
Hello Nate!
I have tested the capita mega mercury 161 for the 2021-2022 season
Let me tell you that I liked it and I felt comfortable at all times.
It surprised me in powder, very easy to float although it was not deep powder.
Crossed bumpy snow very easily
fast, stable, and with a lot of grip on hard and soft snow and good carving
very happy
Is this season less aggressive?
thank you
Hi Javier
I found the 24/25 model a little less aggressive. But that’s relative. Still overall more on the aggressive side of the ledger than the playful side.
Hello,
I am trying to choose between the 158w and 160w. i am currently riding the rome stale crewzer in a 160w. i’m 6’2 205 lbs and a size 11 boot.
Hi Jack
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162/163. With 11s, on a wide board, I would typically err on sizing down a little (and sometimes you can get on a regular width board, depending on the board and a few other factors, which you could on this one – more on that in a bit). But I don’t think you need to go as far down as to the 158W. So I would be leaning 160W (or 161). That’s not to say that the 158W would be completely wrong or anything, but the 160W would be a more optimal size, IMO.
Because this board is quite wide in it’s regular sizes, you may fit on the 161. It would depend on a few things – your binding angles, stance width, how low profile/unbulky your boots are and how deep you like to carve. But unless most of those aren’t in your favor, I think you could get on the 161 and if you can fit on that width-wise, then that’s what I would be leaning towards. It’s as wide as some wide boards, at the inserts. If you wanted to consider the 161, if you were able to let me know your:
– boot brand/model
– binding angles
– stance width
– how deep you like to carve
Hi Nate,
I currently ride an Amplid Paradigma 2010 in 159. I am looking for a Mega Mercury. I am 6″ tall, weighing 175 lbs and have shoe size us 9. I mainly ride groomers, do some side hits and jumping. Sometines some pow and riding switch (not very often) Almost never in park. Would you advice 155 or 157? I am leaning towards 155 due to my shoe size. Would it be long enough for stability on speed and for carving compared to my Paradigma?
Thank you!
Kind regards,
Sander
Hi Sander
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 159, but yeah, I would size down for the Mega Merc because of your 9s vs its width. Both the 157 and 155 are definitely doable and would depend on how you wanted to tweak the ride feel, subtly.
We haven’t tested the Amplid Paradigma, so not sure exactly how it rides, but from I could find out it looks like it’s around a 7/10 flex, and while it looked like Amplid considered it part of their playful all-mountain series, 7/10 flex doesn’t suggest playful to me and looks like a full camber profile. I would still say size-for-size the Mega Merc would be more stable at speed, but I would say that the 155 would be less stable at speed vs the 159 Paradigma. Again this is just a guess, as we haven’t tested the Paradigma, but that would be my guess. If you want to maintain the same level of stability as the 159 Paradigma, my best guess is that the 157 is the way to go.
But if you were happy to sacrifice a little in stability at speed, potentially, to gain a little easier maneuverability and easier pop, that kind of thing, then the 155 would work, just probably with a little less speed performance.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate
My specs
193cm
85kg
9,5 ride fuse boots
What is the ideal size of Mega Merc for me ?
Also tell me about 153 and 156 orca they have same waist width so i can get both size ? Whats is ur opinion
Hi Filip
Thanks for your message.
I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 162. So you could go with the 161 in this case, but the Mega Merc is a little wider than normal and with 9.5s, I would be leaning to the 159 for you. For me (also 9.5 boots – 183cm, 81kg), I’d typically go with around a 159 with this kind of board, but I’ve found with this and the Mercury that the 157 is the sweet spot for me. With a bit more size on me though, I think the 159 would work best for you. The 161 still an option, but I’d be leaning 159.
For the Orca, I would say your best bet is the 156. But the 153 is doable, depending. If you want to keep good stability at speed and optimize float in powder, while still having a board that won’t feel like a tank for turns on the groomers or feel like you can’t ride it unless you’re going 100mph, then I would go 156. If you wanted to optimize it more for agility, e.g. if you were wanting to do a lot of tree riding with it, then you coudl go 153.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks a lot for answer, im trying to search for something lets say similar like Deep Thinker but not similiar haha i like everything about deep thinker but i dont like edge hold at hard pack and ice its just terible for almost all burton snowboards, here at Serbia we have a lot of icy tracks so my search is going to board who can do almost everything but to be good at carving and most important edge hold at hard pack and ice.
Orca 550e
Gnu Gremlin 480e
Capita mega merc 455e
They are all similar for me but also different if u get me haha so thats what im thinking about, also good deals, and im the guy who overthink a lot so its gonna be hard decision
Hi Filip
The Mega Merc is better, IMO, in icy conditions vs the older Deep Thinkers (I see from previous conversations that you have a 2019 version of the Deep Thinker). But there are better, if that’s something that you wanted to maximize. Also, if you’re looking for something more similar to the Deep Thinker, then I would be leaning more towards the Capita BSOD or Mega Death (haven’t tested the Mega Death yet, but supposed to be a burlier version of the BSOD). The Mega Merc is more two-ender than the likes of the Deep Thinker. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t work for what you’re looking for, but because you mentioned you wanted similar to Deep Thinker but better in icy conditions, I think the BSOD would be more similar than the Mega Merc.
The Orca, IMO, is not very similar. The Gremlin too, not super similar, but I’d say more similar than the Orca.
For something more similar to the Deep Thinker, I would check out:
– YES PYL (7/10 flex)
– Jones Flagship (7.5/10 flex)
– GNU Banked Country (6.5/10 flex)
– Rome Ravine Select (8.5/10 flex)
I would say that the PYL and Banked Country are the best of those in hard/icy conditions, but the Ravine Select and Flagship still better than the 2019 Deep Thinker, IMO.
However, also note that I would say that the Ravine Select is the most similar to the 2019 Deep Thinker, having a similar flex and camber profile. The Flagship is also closer in flex.
But these are still different to the Deep Thinker, but closer than the others above. Again, not that they wouldn’t be suitable, but wanted to point out some that I think would be closer to the 2019 Deep Thinker.
It doesnt need to match flex or anything like that , similar in the way to be good at carving and to have better edge hold, i know that gremlin or orca is totaly diferent then deep thinker…
So if u are me u have all price in previous comment what would u take ?
Orca is 700e ( 559e) 2024 model
Gnu gremlin 580e (480e) 2024 model
Capita Mega Merc 780e (455e) 2023 model
With discounts what would you take ?
Also, are orca and gremlin so much better at edge hold vs Capita Mega Merc ?
ALso Mega Death is 1000e , haha for that money i buy a car not a snowboard XD
Hi Filip
There’s a noticeable difference in edge hold, IMO, but not massive. I would be happy with the Mega Merc in icy conditions. Given the price you can get the Mega Merc for and that you want a board that can do a bit of everything, that’s what I would be leaning towards. I preferred the Gremlin over the Orca, so that would be second choice.
Hi Nate,
Looking for a size recommendation and thoughts (thinking 155 vs 157? Idk if I’d consider 153 unless purely for tricks). I’m coming from a Endeavor Pioneer 156.
The Pioneer is great but it does feel like it gets bucked around a bit in uneven terrain especially on the landing from side hits, otherwise I love the board and its characteristics and looks to have a similar profile to the Mega.
I’m 5’10, 165-170 lbs, size 9 Ride Fuse Boots. I like to ride the whole resort, carving fast from time to time, also love to cruise mellow while looking for side hits, and maybe 10% park (not too technical, just your basic 50s and boardies). I do ride pow but really only when we get it, I don’t chase it.
I initially thought 157, but since it’s a stiffer board, I feel like 155 may be a good compromise without losing stability? Looking to make this my one for board everything.
Thoughts? Thanks in advance!
Hi Julian
Thanks for your message. I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 157/158, but given it’s a slightly wider than average board and given you want to mellow it out, I would go to 155. 155 definitely won’t lose stability at your specs, IMO. And will give you quite a bit more on a carve and in terms of stability at speed vs the 156 Pioneer. Should also give you more dampness and stability in uneven terrain. However, it will be harder to ride slow, so more of a challenge when you want to slow it down and cruise. OK on side hits, but harder to set them up, IMO, because it doesn’t turn easy at slower speeds. If you hit them at good pace and don’t have to adjust your line too much when approaching or speed check too quickly after landing, then you should be good. But you want to be confident/competent on side hits with this board, IMO.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate! Pulled the trigger on the 155 and have about 10 days on it now and been loving it!
Question about using this for park/freestyle:
TJ from BoardArchive talks about shifting the bindings half an inch forward to offset the default setback, and make it feel more twin.
(at 3:26)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-j7ZEILjQ0U&t=202s&ab_channel=BoardArchive
I was under the assumption that reference stance is by default centered on sidecut, so if I shift the bindings forward, wouldn’t that put it off center?
Am I misunderstanding this?
—-
Other than that, I love the board.
Love the stability, and 155 definitely still feels playful, and has a really good amount of pop. Didn’t notice any weird difficulty turning it at slower speeds but I did have to be more intentional.
On fast carves, I would sometimes notice the board try to pivot through the middle in between the bindings which I assume is that “Death Grip” Capita has on their boards. It’s a weird feeling, not fun, but doesn’t happen all the time. I’ve heard of some people detuning this area but not sure if that’ll be a good thing, I don’t want to lose any grip.
Hey Julian
Thanks for the update and the insights on how you’re feeling the board.
Any setback stated on a boards specs is the setback on effective edge. So some boards might say centered, but if they’re a directional twin, then they’ll have a nose slightly longer than the tail, so they are essentially setback when looking at the overall length of the board, but centered on effective edge. There are even some boards that are “centered” that are actually tapered directional boards and while they are centered on effective edge, they still might have a big setback in terms of the overall length of the board – e.g. Salomon Dancehaul, which has a centered stance, but has a 50mm setback when looking at the overall length of the board.
In the case of the Mega Merc, it’s stated setback is how much it’s setback on the effective edge. Because it’s setback 0.5″ (12.5mm) it can be tricky with some bindings to center it up, but with other bindings you could center it up. With a setback of 0.5″ you’re not likely to notice a drastic difference when you center it, but you could try it if you’re bindings let you. I usually notice a bit of difference, but I’m looking out for it. It’s pretty subtle, but worth a try to see how it feels for you. Note with the Mega Marc that the nose is a little longer than the tail, so if you were to measure from the center of the front binding to the nose and the center of the back binding to the tail, there should still be more length on the nose, in order for it to still be setback. E.g. on the 157, on it’s 0.5″ (12.5mm) setback on effective edge, the length from the tail to the back binding was 490mm. From the front binding to the nose was 520mm. If you move both bindings towards the nose by 0.5″ (12.5mm), then there would be a 507.5mm length from center of front binding to nose and a 502.5cm length from center of back binding to the tail. You don’t want to be completely centered on the length of the board, or else you would then have a “set forward” stance on effective edge.
Hi Nate,
I got a new 23/24 Mega Merc. I totally agree with you labeling the flex as 7.5 rather than the Capita rate as 6.5. I prefer all-mountain bombing and carving, I think this board is fully capable of handling these and a good jumping ability as well.
But now I’m struggling with fixing it with Rome Katana or Cleaver. It looks the Cleaver is more aggressive and reactive, but stiffer certainly. The flex rating of Katana (5-8) sounds more suit for Mega Merc cuz the half-wrap gives more flexibility. I would like to ask if you think it is necessary to choose Cleaver for just more responsiveness and deeper carving? I wear 9.5 Nitro Capital boots and I will pull out the tongue piece in most cases.
Ps. My friend wants to sell his Atlas Pro (only used twice) at a low price. Could you please also take this into consideration?
Many thanks
Hi Alan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah Capita does their flex ratings based on the wood core and don’t take the glassing etc in to account, so that triax/triax glassing on the Mega Merc vs the Triax/Biax on the regular Mercury definitely adds to its stiffness.
The Katana for me is more like a 6.5/10 flex, by feel so it’s within range for the Mega Merc but ideally I would go a little stiffer. But it’s a match still, IMO. The Cleaver feels more like an 8/10 flex to me, so I would be leaning towards that, as I think it’s a better flex match. However, you don’t have to. The Katana would still work well, IMO.
The Atlas Pro is, IMO, also an 8/10 flex, by my feel and I think it would match really well with the Mega Merc.
You could also look at the Bataleon Astro Halfwrap (Bataleon bindings are very similar to Rome bindings). We haven’t tested the halfwrap version but got on the fullwrap version and it was pretty stiff (8.5/10 by my feel) but the halfwrap is supposed to be softer. Couldn’t say how much softer for sure, but I would suspect around 7/10 to 7.5/10.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hey Nate. I ride a Jones Stratos 161w (6′ / 195lbs / 11.5 boot) now but its beat up and in need of replacing. I am between getting another Stratos, a Mega Merc 160W, or BSOD 161W. I mainly ride PNW steeps and powder but enjoy getting playful in the spring and doing sidehits. Looking for a one board fits all. Any advice? I enjoy the turn initiation and float of the Stratos and don’t find it stiff.
Hey Pete
Thanks for your message.
To establish a good reference, I did find the Stratos quite stiff. Felt around a 7.5/10 flex to me, so not ultra stiff, but stiffer than average. I found the BSOD and Mega Merc similar in terms of flex, so it’s likely that you wouldn’t find them overly stiff either. So, in that sense you shouldn’t have problems with their flex in terms of getting more playful and doing side-hits. I didn’t find them great for getting playful/sidehits, but neither did I for the Stratos, so I think with that reference in mind you’ll be fine in that sense.
Given you want good powder performance, I’d be leaning either going another Stratos or go BSOD if you want something a bit different. I would say this: Stratos>BSOD>MegaMerc, in terms of powder. Mega Merc certainly not bad in that sense, but not quite as good as the other two. The Stratos best in powder, IMO. For what you’re describing, I don’t think you can make a bad choice between them, but that powder performance might be the tie breaker.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for the intel Nate. Any other alternatives that you think might fit the bill even better? Since writing my first post I have thought about entertaining something maybe slightly less aggressive or just different including the Capita Navigator, Ride Deep Fake, and the new Rome Stalefish. Thoughts? Thanks!
Hey Pete
The Capita Navigator is certainly a lot less aggressive, in my experience. We haven’t tested the Deep Fake. I rode the Stalefish last winter and found quite stiff and found you needed to ride it quite aggressively, so I’m not sure you’d find that one less aggressive. For some more mellow freeride types of boards, you could check out our top 10 mellow freeride snowboards list.
Hey Nate,
I own a 19/20 Mercury 155cm and have been considering upgrading to a Mega Merc 155, or maybe switching to a Super DOA 155W.
My question is most regarding stiffness. Is the Mega Merc stiffer than the vanilla Merc? Capita’s website rates them the same. How do you feel the Super DOA fits in to the boards?
I love my current Mercury, it’s just about perfect for me as an all mountain do it all board. I ride in every condition but deep days (Mind Expander, or Cardiff Crane). That said I’m itching to try out the new tech and maybe shed a little weight from my feet.
I don’t really want to go much stiffer, or I fear I’ll lose the ability to butter as I’m just able to make it work on my 155 Merc. I’m completely open to any suggestions, just really love my Merc, so I have Capita on the brain and some money to burn.
my deets:
5’8
155
9.5 boot
45 days/year, advanced/expert, ride everything
Thank you!
Hi MikeMac
Thanks for your message. I found the Mega Merc noticeably stiffer than the regular Mercury. From what I’ve been told Capita’s flex ratings (and I’m not sure if this is the same for every brand, but I’ve heard this about Capita) are based solely on the wood core and doesn’t take into account the glass and other aspects around the core. The glassing on the Mega Merc is a double layer of triax (which is stiffer than biax) whereas the Mercury has a triax layer and a biax layer. This is likely where most of the extra stiffness comes from. My instinct, based on your specs and what you’re describing, is that you’d like the Mercury more, flex-wise.
The Super DOA is quite a different board, but super light, so if you’re looking for something lighter, then it’s got that for sure, in my experience. It’s not very good in powder, but you have other boards for that. For me it feels about the same flex as the regular Mercury – around that 6.5/10 flex. It’s got a little bit more of a locked in feeling. In terms of butters, it’s similar to the Mercury in my experience and easier than the Mega Merc. For carving and speed I feel they’re comparable – a different feel to how they turn/carve, but overall performance is comparable, IMO. The Mega Merc a little better for speed/carving, but for what you’re looking for, IMO, the trade off for butters and getting more casual/playful.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks so much for the detailed response, the double layer of triax leading to a stiffer flex makes a lot of sense, I never would have clued into that without you sharing. That said I think buying the Mega Merc in 155 would have been a bit of a disappointment for me as the regular was about perfect stiffness wise. It’s tempting to size down, but I don’t want to go narrower. I wish board companies would make wide boards in shorter lengths, not just the long ones.
The search continues!
Have you ever had the chance to ride an Amplid? Their Singular and Singular Twin look really interesting.
Mike
Hey MikeMac
Haven’t tested anything Amplid, unfortunately.
You could check out the YES Standard, while not technically a wide board, it’s wider than it looks. The 153 has a 253mm waist width, which on the face of it is narrower than the Mercury 155. But it’s wider at the inserts than it looks. For reference, width at inserts of each below:
– 155 Mercury: 262mm front insert, 264mm back insert
– 153 Standard: 268mm front and back insert
These figures both assume a 22″ (560mm) stance width. So you’d be going shorter, but wider. Note that Yes actually measures at the insert width too. They’re figures are 266mm at the inserts for the 153 Standard, but they measure it at a narrower 20.5″ stance width, so makes sense that they’re measurements would be narrower. But the Mercury would also be narrower at a narrower stance width, so it’s all relative.
I love that width at the inserts is listed by Yes, very informative, and thank you for that awesome recommendation. I actually have a 2012 Yes Big City that was a ton of fun, and is probably comparable to the Standard these days. Also the Standard was my runner up against the Mercury.
This whole process now has me thinking maybe I keep the Mercury. I still love it, and I think a lighter board that is similar may not exist atm. It’s not like the Mercury is heavy at all, in fact it is very light given its surface area.
Since you had me browsing the YES website, I’m thinking maybe I go with a Greats Uninc in 151 for my local hill where it’s mostly park and mellow terrain, and save the Mercury for my trips to the big mountains. It sounds like even the 151 Greats is going to be wider at the inserts than the 155 Merc, which is awesome, and should be fun to butter and carve with too. All of which is exactly what I want in a board for my local. Helps that you seem to love it too.
I appreciate you Nate, you are an absolute legend replying to all these questions and dropping your knowledge on us all. A massive resource for the snowboarding community. Thank you!
Mike
You’re very welcome Mike. And yeah, the Greats in 151 will be wider at inserts than the Mercury, so you shouldn’t have any width issues with that. Hope you have a great season!
Love your reviews!
Considering this board in a 158W or a 160W. I HATE when my boards feel washy, so considering the 160W for the extra effective edge. Currently daily-drive a 159W jones mountain twin. Size 11 boot, 175-185 pounds. Any recommendations either way?
My thought is I probably won’t really be able to tell the difference of 2cm anyway, and this board is light, so go bigger. However, I’ve never had a stiff board before, wondering how much the stiffness will help with grip and if the 158W will be fine due to the stiffness.
Hey Joe
Thanks for your message.
The extra stiffness definitely does help with grip, IMO, so I don’t think you’d have issues with it feeling washy in the 158W. That said, the 160W is in your range as well. Looking back at a comment from you from the Mountain Twin post, I got your height (I like to take height into account. While weight and boot size are more important I still like to consider height for the leverage factor) and I would put your “typical all-mountain length at around 159/160, so the 160W certainly isn’t too big for you length-wise, IMO. Given you’re in an 11, so certainly want to go wide, but don’t have to go too wide, I would be leaning 158W typically, but if you feel you wanted to go bigger, then the 160W is still certainly in range, IMO.
It always surprises me when I get 2 boards at once that are 2-3cm apart in size and how much I can notice the difference. It’s never an astronomical difference, but I can notice it for sure. Then again, I’m wired/practiced to notice any differences in boards, so it may not be as noticeable for others. Also to note that it’s much more noticeable if the difference is mostly in the effective edge and not outside the contact points. So 2cm difference in effective edge is really noticeable, but 2cm extra length between the nose and tail is less noticeable (unless in powder). With the Mega Merc it’s got 1.6cm of it’s extra length within the effective edge, so I imagine it’s something I would notice, but it’s not going to be a super profound difference or anything.
Hope this helps
Dear Nate, I am a very frequent visitor and fan of your page. Thanks for all the effort you put in! Could you help me out?
->About me: I am 6’3 (192cm), 185lbs (85kg), EU street shoes 45 (reduced foot print on SNB shoes sometimes 44.5).
->My riding style and what I am looking for: Expert rider (20+ y). I love taking on the whole mountain, bombing runs/being fast(er), carving, riding switch, doing various butter variations, side-hitting (180, 360, grabs) and taking on powder. I currently rock the 19/20 Yes Greats 159 with Uniom Stratas, which is nice, but I need more speed, dampness and “powder-ability”. In short, I need (even) more of an all-mountain one quiver (the Great’s deficit in powder and dampness are too noticable for me). That is, a board that truly allows me to do all of the riding aspects above confidently while being damp enough for high speed and crud/chunder. That’s where my attention was led to the Mega Merc.
->My questions:
a) Do you agree that the Mega Merc could be a match?
b) Would you think the Mega Merc 160w (not yet bought) with Union Falcors (already bought on sale) would be a good combo?
c) If not: I am fully open. What would be your suggestions for my case (board, size, binding, whatever, I gladly take all the inputs I can get)?
Thank you very much and kind regards from Switzerland, Johnny
Hey Johnny
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mega Merc should work well for what you’re looking for. I’d say the one thing that will be more difficult is locking in butters. Something you can still certainly do with the Mega Merc, but will take more effort than on something like the Greats. But I wouldn’t say it’s a deal breaker for what you’re looking for, given you’re an advanced rider and obviously experienced in buttering. And there’s always going to be a trade off if you’re looking for more stability at speed and dampness. So I think it’s a good match for what you’re looking to do. And size-wise, I think 160W is a good bet. The Falcor should pair nicely with it – and I think it’s a good choice for the style of riding you’re doing, given that you still want that butterability and board feel for the likes of butters, sidehits, grabs etc, so the Falcor gives you enough stiffness for the Mega Merc, but will still allow some good board feel.
Hope this helps with your decision
Dear Nate, thanks so much! This helps me a lot.
I’d like to give back to you: I have been working in the field of digital business / web services for many years and have some feedback for your website. If you’re interested, drop me an e-mail adress or a web form where I can post it. Don’t worry, I am not an independent contractor looking for orders. I am just an enthusiast and fan of what you’re doing and would happily help you with feedback since you helped me.
Again, THANKS a lot for the valuable advice. Kind regards from Switzerland, Johnny
Hey Johnny
You’re very welcome. And yes, that would be great to get some feedback. If you want to send me an message via our contact form – that would be great. Would really appreciate the feedback.
Yeah, thank you so much, Nate. Awesome and helpful advice! Kind regards from Switzerland, Johnny
Will a 157 work ok for size 9 boots and 160lb? I can get a decent deal on a 2023 but only size I can find is 157, I feel like I might be closer to a 154. Ive ridden a 154 passport, 157 Achemist, and 157 Mountain twin without any issues at those sizes.
Hey MJ
Thanks for your message.
With a 9 at your weight, I’d be more inclined to go 155, depending on your height, if you could find it. But if you were also able to let me know your height that would help (weight and boot size most important to sizing, IMO, but I still like to take height into account as it has a leverage factor).
Hey Nate!
I was wondering what would you recommend if I were to go snowboarding in Colorado with just one board? In addition, my height is 188cm, weight is 88kg, boots size us10.5, what size do you recommend?
Hi Gilbert
Thanks for your message.
Can you let me know more about your riding. It depends on the person. If your riding entails just bombing groomers, seeking powder and laying carves, then the answer will be different to if you like to spend most of your time finding side hits, hitting the park etc. So anything you can tell me about how you like to ride and I can narrow it down further.
just bombing groomers, seeking powder and laying carvings. Occasionally some jumping platforms in the park
Hi Gilbert
Thanks for the extra info. Then I think something like the Mega Merc or another aggressive all-mountain board could work. Or you could even look at a freeride board, if you’re not riding switch at all.
Do you have a recommended size?
Hey Gilbert
For the Mega Merc, I think the 161 would be just right. But you could also go to the 159, if you wanted to mellow it out a bit or make it more nimble, but for how you describe your riding, I think the 161 is your best bet.
Generally speaking, I would put your “typical all-mountain length” at around 161/162. And in most cases in that length, you shouldn’t need to go wide with 10.5s, but in some cases you might, depending on the board. Happy to give sizing for other specific boards, if you were to narrow it down to 2-3 of them. Sizing can be board specific depending on certain things.
Hey Nate,
Looking to buy my first board after about 10 years of 1-3 trips a year and renting.
I love established tree runs, charging groomers, and powder when I can find it.
While preparing for a trip a had a few people reccomend the Ride Berzerker and Mega Mercury. I was only able to find a Berzerker 157 demo and I really enjoyed it. It was engaging, challenging, and good turn initiation on the medium speed established tree runs.
Would you say the Mega Merc would perform the same or better? Should I stick with the Berzerker since I really enjoyed it? Would you recommend any other boards.
Sizing suggestions would be greatly appreciated too. 5’10” 170 lbs.
Thanks!
Hi Balakay
Thanks for your message.
Having had a good experience with the Berzerker, that always makes it a safer bet, but I personally preferred the Mega Merc for most things. However, for trees I think I would prefer the Berzerker, especially size-for-size. Whilst I felt the Berzerker preferred speed over slower riding, I felt it was to a lesser extent than the Mega Merc and also if you’re tree runs are typically done at medium speed and not slower, tighter, more technical tree runs, then that’s less of an issue.
Note however, that I haven’t ridden the Berzerker for some time now and when I did I could only get on a 162, so whilst I felt the 162 Berzerker was similar to the 157 Mercury in terms of trees/quick turns/turn initiation, if it was the 157 Berzerker vs the 157 Mega Merc, the 157 Berzerker would be better for that. However, also note that the Berzerker has changed a little since I rode it. Also, just noticed that the 157 is technically considered a wide just looking at it now. However, with a 255mm waist, it’s quite narrow for a wide and is still likely narrower than the regular width 157 Mega Merc.
Size-wise, if you could also let me know your boot size.
Hi Nate,
Thank you for all the insightful reviews.
I’m looking to upgrade my board, and would love to get some advice from you.
I’m 5’9” 160lbs, wear size 10 boots, and CartelX bindings. I love weaving through trees, under the lift moguls where I need to deal with chop & chunder. If off-piste is too sketchy, I love bombing the groomers. Deep powder days are infrequent where I live, but need something that would be decently fun when I do get the opportunity. Some side hits here and there but not into park or buttering etc.
What do you think would work better between the Mega Merc and Kazu for my style of riding? Any other boards you could recommend?
Thanks in advance!
Hi Jacob
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning Kazu for what you’re describing. It’s not quite as good for Mega Merc for crashing through chop & chunder, but I much preferred it for trees and moguls. Size-wise, I’d be looking at the 157 for your specs and how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, your site is the best thanks for everything you do!
I saw you would prefer the cartel x over the Malavita, but I would appreciate some clarification on this. A lot of people recommend the stratas or regular cartels on this board, which I thought were very similar flex to the vitas.
I’m 6’1”, 195-200 pounds, size 13 boot, stocky weightlifter build, and getting next years mega merc in 160MW for all mountain and side hits. I currently ride vitas (on a westmark rocker) and love the dampness and construction. (I just bought some stratas but I much prefer Burton’s straps/highback padding/construction, so no more union for me)
Would another pair of vitas be too soft for this board, especially at my higher weight? (FYI rumors are the vitas are being discontinued)
And are the new cartels stiff enough, or should I go with the cartel x? Supposedly the cartel x are now as stiff as previous cartels, and new cartels are now softer like missions. I’m open to other brands too. Thanks!
Hey Todd
Thanks for your message.
I would go Cartel X on the Mega Merc. Capita may rate it a 6.5/10 flex, but their flex ratings only rate the core of the board. The glassing and other things can really increase the stiffness of a board, like in the case of the Mega Merc. I would personally go stiffer than the Malavita on it. And for your weight/strength I think stiffer would work better too. Anything in that 7/10 to 9/10 flex range would be a good bet, IMO. You can definitely ride it with the Vitas (I did) and could ride it with the Cartel’s too, but not ideal, IMO – if I was to setup with this board I’d go stiffer. The Cartel X would be a good match, IMO. For some other options you could also check out:
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 Freeride Bindings
Hope this helps
Thanks for the reply! Would the cartel x be stiff enough to drive this board with my heavier weight/strength?
Also, how do you feel about the Now Drives for the MM? I know you rated them pretty low, but I assume with the hard bushings it will be plenty powerful. White lines gave it their 100 award this winter and it seems Now/Jones bindings are getting a bigger following since you’ve reviewed the drives 4 years ago.
Hi Todd
I think the Cartel X would be stiff enough. But they’re the softest I would put on the Mega Merc.
The Drive would work well. The biggest reason for my lower rating on the Drives is because of board feel and the straps. They have since improved their straps, so that shouldn’t be a big thing. The board feel thing probably hasn’t changed, but board feel is most important for freestyle stuff, so if you’re not going to be doing creative playful tricks or anything like that, then that wouldn’t be an issue. Apart from those things, I generally liked NOW/Jones bindings.
Dear Nate,
you are providing a “feeling” flex of 7,5 for the Mega Merc although on the other hand the physical flex is 6,5. Is the flex really tending to be harder than the specs are?
Why does Capita for this reason not provide the inbetween flex of 7 or so.
Somehow this makes me feel unsure and I am afraid of the board beeing not stiff enough for bombing, going high speeds stable and carving.
I am in detaill comparing a bit with the Yes PYL.
Thanks a lot,
Andi
Hi Andi
Thanks for your message.
This, IMO is definitely more than a 6.5/10 flex. Capita, from what I’ve been told, and I don’t know if it’s the same for all brands, base their flex rating on the flex of the core only. Which doesn’t take into account glassing or anything else, which can make a huge difference to the flex of the board. You’ll notice that Capita have the Merc and Mega Merc both rated at 6.5/10 flex. But the Mega Merc has Triax/Triax glassing, versus Triax/Biax glassing. Not to mention things like the Carbon array on the Mega Merc. And in reality, at least in my experience, the Mega Merc is significantly stiffer then Mercury.
Mega Merc stiffer than the PYL, in my experience. I also had someone else helping me with testing last winter and he also found the Mega Merc stiffer than the PYL.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
it seems that I am very close to going with a Mega Merc. Since right now it’s almost end of current season and close to release for the 2024 models I am not sure if it would be worth it to take a look at what Capita will enhance for the Mega Merc 2024 (if the previews of the grey/silver top sheet are real than I would rather prefer the 2024 design).
But mainly I am curious what technically will be updated
.
I will have maybe one or two snowboarding days left riding this season so it could make sense to wait a bit. On the other hand there would be good offers for the last 2023 models.
When apropximately will you be testing the 2024 capita models and updating it in the review section?
I actually can’t wait to get to know the enhancements.
All the best,
Andi
Hi Andi
From what I can tell the 2024 Mega Merc is getting a new base, but otherwise, apart from the graphic, looks to be technically the same board. Not sure how much that new base differ from the old, it was already pretty fast. We are unlikely to retest the Mega Merc, given the changes don’t seem to be significant. There are other models with more significant changes and new models, which are our priorities to test. But essentially you’re not looking at too much difference, so the main reason to wait for the 2024 model would be for the graphic or the potential of a slightly better base. Unless you can’t find your best size in the 2023 mode, then I would wait for the 2024 model. Better to wait to get the best size later rather than a sub-optimal size now, IMO.
Hi Nate, I am looking to upgrade by board and the Mega Merc looks great. I currently have a 2020 Assassin Pro 162, but I am more into charging boombing and carving that spending any time in the park. I ride in the East and in resorts and it looks like the Merc is a better at handling the bumps and better for carving and bombing. I am about 82kg, 6′, I have size 11 Thraxis boots, I set my bindings at -15 +15. My level is getting to high intermediate to advanced. I ride some switch but not much only when my legs get tired.
I think that the 161 Mega Merc should be a good fit, but my feet are a bit on the large side an perhaps I should go with the 160Wwhat do you think? The Mega Merc is 3mm wider at the waist than the 162 Assassin Pro. I have never knowingly fallen from heel or toe drag on the Assassin Pro. For bindings I would most likely reuse my 2020 Union Falcors or buy some new ones if I can get a good deal. Keep up the good work. You website is amazing.
Hi Duncan
Thanks for your message.
I think you should be good on the 161 with those binding angles, assuming you weren’t getting any boot drag on the Assassin Pro 162. The 162 Assassin Pro, assuming a roughly 22″ stance width is around 267mm at the inserts. The Mega Merc 161 is around 270mm at the back insert and 268mm at the front insert, again assuming a roughly 22″ stance width. So it’s not a lot wider, but wider by a little bit. But assuming you’ve had no issues on your Assassin Pro, you should be fine.
In terms of length, I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 160 – so you could go either 159 or 161, but I would be leaning 161 in this case as I think it’s best for your riding style, you’re used to a 162 and it gives you that little bit more leeway width-wise – but even ignoring width, I’d be leaning 161 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, thanks for your recommendation. I am trying to get a 161 on sale. Another board which looks interesting is the Amphid Singular. Have you ridden that one?
Hi Duncan
Haven’t ridden anything from Amplid yet, unfortunately, so don’t have any first hand experience with the Singular unfortunately.
Nate,
Some feedback. I bought the Mega Merc 161 at the end of last year and I absolutely love it. It’s quite similar to the Assassin Pro but just better in every way. I ride in a resort and the way the Mega Merc deals with the crud in the afternoon is amazing. Carving is amazing too and its as fast as I dare ride. I have not had any issues with toe drag. I saw the 2024 version yesterday in Silver and it looks amazing. I have been riding with +15-15 for a very long time. I tried +15-12 and felt a bit more stable at speed but for carving I felt that I couldn’t bend my back leg to get my weight over the board and was more off the board and more likely to loose the edge. I could be that it was the second day of riding and my legs were a bit stiff. I will try again next weekend. Thanks again for your recommendations.
Hi Duncan
Thanks for the update and the feedback. Great to hear what you thought of it. Yeah you could keep experimenting with binding angles. But if you end up going back to +15/-15, there’s nothing wrong with sticking with that. Happy riding!
Hi Nate, killer reviews! Your site has helped me make some tough decisions.
Quick question: where are you measuring the width at the insert packs? I assume the middle of the reference stance but if not let me know. I wish manufacturers would make it standard to post that measurement. Thanks for doing it for us!
Hey Ryan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah middle of the reference stance. And it’s on the base of the board (not the top sheet) – so outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge.
A few starting to do it now, which is good to see. Nidecker, Jones, YES all now show width at inserts.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Im stuck between the mega merc and the Goliath plus, my height is 5’6 and weight 158lb current board is the Goliath 2020 153 and looking to upgrade to something a bit more aggressive
The Goliath would be the 156 my weight is at the lower end for this on the chart, I’m thinking it might be a little harder to handle going with the aggressiveness of the board where with the mega merc i can go for the 153
What’s your thoughts? Do you think the 156 Goliath would be to much or just go for the mega merc on the 153
Hi David
Thanks for your message.
In my experience the Mega Merc is considerably more aggressive than the Goliath Plus. I haven’t ridden the regular Goliath, but I found the Goliath Plus to be not super aggressive at all. Not ultra playful either, but playful enough that I have it in my all-mountain category, rather than aggressive all-mountain. Even going 153 in the Mega Merc and 156 in the Goliath Plus, I still think the Mega Merc would be more aggressive, personally.
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” at around 155, so I don’t think the 156 is too far off for the Goliath Plus, though depending on your boot size, it might be a bit on the big side, when combining length/width. If you could let me know your boot size, that would help.
If you go Mega Merc, I think the 153 is the best bet.
Given the size difference, it should even out a bit in terms of aggressiveness, but I still think the 153 Mega Merc will be noticeably more aggressive than the 156 Goliath Plus (based on my experience with the 156 Goliath Plus and 157 Mega Merc), so I think it depends on how much more aggressive you want to go and how much different you want the feel. If you’re looking for a more subtle difference (all be it a little less subtle than it otherwise would be by sizing up), then I’d go Goliath Plus. If you want a more pronounced difference and a more different feel of ride, then the Mega Merc.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I am currently looking for a replacement for my Capita SuperDOA. Great board, but since I mainly want to carve down the groomers at high speed and occasionally look for the powder I think the Mega Merc suits me better.
Which size do you think would suit me best? I weigh 91 Kg and have shoe size US12. I come out on the 160W myself. I prefer to ride my board as short as possible and the 158W could also work, but I’m just a bit over the weight limit for the 158W. What do you think?
I’m also still in doubt about bindings to go with it. I currently have a pair of Rome Katanas. Fantastic bindings, but the Union Falcors appeal to me as well. What do you think about both bindings?
Thanks!
Kai
Hi Kai
Thanks for your message.
If you’re best size according to height/weight is 160W, then you should be fine on the 158W, if you like to size down a bit. I wouldn’t worry too much about being over the weight limit. You’ll probably notice it feeling a bit softer flexing than what I did and you’d likely sacrifice a little bit in terms of float in powder and stability at speed. But this board will float better than the Super DOA, even in a smaller size and it’s super stable at speed, so even losing a little bit there, it should still be nice and stable. But if you could also let me know your height (weight is more important for length sizing, but I still like to take height into account as it does have a leverage factor, IMO).
I really like the Katana’s and I think they’d be a really good match with the Mega Merc. The Falcors also a really good match, but if you already have the Katana’s I’d stick with them.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your reply.
I’m 1.90m (6’28).
Looking at Capita’s weight chart for the Mega Merc, the 158W goes up to 86 Kg and the 160W up to 93 Kg. Since I weigh 91 Kg myself (with clothes, helmet/goggles about 93 Kg), I automatically ended up with the 160W. I currently ride my Super DOA in 158W, but it goes up to 90 Kg.
Although manoeuvrability is important to me, I also want to get some higher speeds with the Mega Merc. Hence the extra 2 cm seemed handy to me for a bit more stability. Since I will still ride the 160W on the short side, manoeuvrability will also be fine don’t you think?
Does my height make any difference do you think?
Hi Kai
I would put your “standard all-mountain length” for your height/weight at around 163, so going 160W would be sizing a little shorter anyway. And the Super DOA is a board you typically ride a bit shorter anyway (more freestyle oriented and with more effective edge per overall length – e.g. 158W Super DOA has effective edge of 124.9cm versus the 158W Mega Merc with 122.3cm. The 160W Mega Merc has an effective edge of 123.9cm). So, the 160W Mega Merc is in a lot of ways the equivalent to the 158W Super DOA size-wise. So yeah, I think you’ll be fine on it maneuverability-wise.
In this case I think your height does make some difference. If you were like 5’9″/5’10” and were wanting to size down a little, then I wouldn’t consider the 160W sizing down and would be more inclined with going 158W.
Thanks Nate! I think the 160W is best for me then. The 161 would also be an option, but 160W fits a bit better in terms of weight and width and for what I want to do with it.
Have a nice season!
You’re very welcome Kai. Hope you have a great season too! If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on with the Mega Merc, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow.
Hi Nate. Hope you are having a great upcoming season. After seeing all the YouTube videos and reviews on this board, I see everyone has matched the Mega merc with the union atlas. I am torn between the union falcor and the union atlas. Not sure the difference between the mini disk and regular disk? Heard the mini disk is more surfy? I can’t find any good information between the two. Union website shows the falcor better for all mountain/freeride and atlas better for all mountain/freestyle. I’m an all mountain/ freeride guy that likes to ride fast and aggressive, straight line, bomb hills and groomers, powder and trees. Prefer side hits or launching off natural features rather than riding in the park and I don’t ride switch unless I land that way or buttering. Please help me decide which binding that would pair with the mega merc and my style of riding. Thank you so much for your time and I look forward to your response.
Hi Ron
Thanks for your message.
I would say the other way around, that the Atlas is more all-mountain/freeride and the Falcor more all-mountain/freeride/freestyle. I put in both because it’s still good for freeride. But it’s the binding with the better board feel and shock absorption, so to me, that makes it better for freestyle – and riding in both bindings, I would prefer the Falcor when I’m doing freestyle stuff over the Atlas.
I would say in terms of feel between the two bindings that the Falcor has a more explosive/springy response to it versus the Atlas, which has a more consistent, even response.
Both suit the Mega Merc for sure, so there isn’t a bad choice to make. The Falcor, IMO, will be better for when you’re hitting sidehits and buttering. For everything else, I think it depends on what you like the sound of more – explosive/springy or even/consistent. If it was me, I would put the Falcor on the Mega Merc but depends on that personality you’re after.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you so much for your detailed explanation. I’m leaning falcor. Also looking at the capita bsod. So basically I am between the mega merc and bsod for a new board. Then the atlas and falcor for bindings. I’ve read all your reviews and I can’t make up my mind. Which board seems better for my style of riding? Seems like I have the bindings picked now just between the bsod and mega merc.
Hi Ron
Both the BSOD and Mega Merc would work for what you’re describing. For when you are buttering (gotta muscle both of these boards to get them to lock into a press but you can do it, just takes really getting your weight into it) the Mega Merc is a little better than the BSOD, just because it’s a more even feeling on tip and tail, but BSOD isn’t like way worse or anything. And for switch Mega Merc a little better, but doesn’t sound like you’re doing it a lot – the BSOD isn’t terrible at it either.
The BSOD a little better in powder and in trees when there’s powder in there. Both are boards you’ve got to work for when it comes to riding trees, especially if it’s quite slow and technical, but they can do it, just not effortless or anything.
For sidehits, I would actually slightly give the nod to the BSOD, though again there’s not much in it. And if you’re spinning off sidehits, the Mega Merc becomes a little better.
Both good at speed and carving, so I think you’re going to be good there.
I think overall I would be leaning BSOD, but the Mega Merc definitely wouldn’t be a bad choice.
Thank you so much for the excellent explanations. I really appreciate your time and attention to detail. Think I’m leaning bsod but wish I could have both since they both seem like amazing boards. Have a great season and stay safe.
You’re very welcome Ron. Hope you have an awesome season too!
Hey Nate, Nate here.
I am torn between the Mega Merc 160w & and Jones Flagship 161. I am 6’2 165lbs size 11 boots. I’m looking for a daily driver. I primarily ride in the Northwest and Pacific Northwest. I am a freeride/all mountain type of rider spending most of my time off piste and in the trees if conditions allow. I rarely, if ever, hit the park. Obviously conditions are never perfect so if there isn’t pow to be ridden I can have some fun on the groomers practicing turns and seeking side hits. I would like my next deck to handle some backcountry and side country too. I think my biggest fears are that the Merc is too playful and not good enough in pow. And the Flagship is maybe too aggressive if I’m not gripping and ripping all day. Curious what your thoughts are? Thanks for the time and response.
Hey Nate
Thanks for your message and great name by the way!
I would go Flagship for what you’re describing. IMO the Mega Merc is actually more aggressive than the Flagship, so I wouldn’t worry about it being too playful – and it’s not bad in powder either. But the Flagship is better in powder and better in trees, IMO. For backcountry, sidecountry, powder of any sort and trees, I’d take the Flagship and since that sounds like what you’ll be doing the most that’s the way I’d be leaning.
However, I’d go 159W for your specs. With 11s, the 161 is going to be too narrow, IMO. The 162W, when taking into account length and width is a little too big. But the 159W is just right, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I just wanted to say I absolutely love your reviews and the site in general. Thanks for all the hard work that goes into making it all happen for us. You guys are always the first place I refer friends to check out.
I’m 5’9 185 pounds size 9.5 boot, going on 24 years of riding. I’m replacing my 2008 yes 2008 158 Burton Custom X, had a 162 burton FL project before that and just found a deal on a 159 mega merc. I pulled the trigger on it but can return it if needed. My snowboard style is hard and fast (but safe on blacks and double blacks) recently hitting 65 mph with a goal of getting to 85 mph gradually without going to hardboots. That being said I know my old custom X is full camber
The mega merc was on my list along with these boards (sorry not all are on the site) but would appreciate any feedback on them compared to the mega merc when it comes to full out speed. I was comparing Jones ultra flagship, K2 alchemist, cardiff bonsai, ride commissioner or another Custom X. I’ve also thought of going Sg or Kessler boarder cross boards.
Looking forward to reading your opinion, thanks
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message and for the referrals – much appreciated!
Of those boards I’ve only ridden the Custom X and the Mega Merc (I rode the old Ride Timeless, which is similar, but not the same as the Commissioner). So unfortunately can’t give any first hand experience on the others there. The Mega Merc is very good at speed, but the one thing, as you alluded to, that stops it from being the ultimate at speed is the rocker in the tip and tail. It sacrifices a little there in order to also be decent in powder.
The Custom X, in my experience is a little better – though they have mellowed out the flex a little in the more recent models – previously would have given it a 5/5.
I found the old Ride Timeless could handle any amount of speed, but not sure if that translates to the Commissioner, which I think was made a little more forgiving than the Timeless, though I suspect, even if it’s not quite as stable at speed, that it’s pretty close.
The regular Flagship is what I would give a 4/5 for speed, so the Ultra Flagship is likely to be at least 4.5/5 given how stiff it’s supposed to be, but having not ridden it couldn’t say for sure.
I haven’t ridden anything Cardiff, Sg or Kessler, so I have no reference for them, unfortunately.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Hi Nate! I am a fast aggressive rider looking for a new board this season. I am 5’10, 195lbs, size 10 wide burton photon boot, union falcor size medium bindings on a libtech orca 156 ( yes guilty of being a fan of Travis rice haha) I find the orca too slow and not aggressive for my style of resort riding. I’m looking at a new 1 board quiver to cover bombing groomers and hills, riding steep and technical terrain, trees, 1-2ft of powder max since I ride mostly in the resort and do some free ride as well. Mostly ride blues-double blacks on and off piste and not into park, jumps jibbing or riding switch. Just hate getting bogged down on greens or cat tracks with the orca and looking for some speed when I have to get down to the base. Looking at these 2 setups:
1. Capita Mega Merc 159 or 161
2. Jones Flagship 161 or 162W
Please let me know which board would fit my needs better and which size?
Both boards have great warranties. Heard the top sheet on the jones can be an issue from some reviews with it delaminating. I would really appreciate your input and expert advice. Lookin forward to your response! Thank you
Hi Tristan
Thanks for your message.
To me the Mega Merc is the more aggressive of the two boards and given you’re style of riding, I would be leaning towards that.
The Flagship is better for powder, IMO, and I’d personally prefer to have it in the trees but for bombing and carving up the groomers, the Mega Merc is a beast. And it’s not above average in powder, IMO.
Size-wise, I’d be leaning 161 on the Mega Merc, given your style. The 159 is certainly an option and both will be wide enough. But I’d be leaning 161 given you want to ride fast/aggressive. Keeping in mind the 159 will likely feel better in trees.
If you went Flagship I would be leaning 161, to keep it agile for trees and going to be almost as good at speed. It should be wide enough in most scenarios given you have Photon (low profile) 10s. If you were riding with a really flat back binding angle (i.e. 0-3 degrees) and like to really get deep in your carves (i.e. eurocarving) then there’s some risk, but otherwise you should be fine width-wise on the 161. The 162W would work though – and even the 164 if you really wanted to increase your stability at speed and float in powder.
Hope this helps
Thank you so much for your response. It’s a difficult decision since the mega merc is a bomber yet the flagship is better in powder. At least you addressed the sizing at 161. I ride at 18 and -9 but can adjust some if necessary. I’m so torn but leaning towards the mega mercury since I don’t get to ride powder as much as I’d like unfortunately. It’s just exhausting leaning back all day on a twinish board but yet again I could have the orca for that. Mega merc for bombing and orca for powder. Appreciate your time and happy riding
You’re very welcome Tristan.
And yeah, if you were to hold on to the Orca you could certainly use that for powder days.
Hello again, I just checked my new boots and my boots are actually a size 10w burton photon boa. My old pair of k2 boots were 10.5 and I weighed in today at 190lbs. Should I go 159 or 161 for the mega mercury. Again I ride at 18 -9. Not sure if that will
Change your decision? 159
Is 25.9cm
Waist width for 140-200lbs and 161 26.1cm 160-220+ lbs. I ordered the 161 like you mentioned but not sure if I want to change to 159 with my updated specs. Not a cheap board so I don’t want to make a mistake. I appreciate your time
Hi Tristan
I think purely based on specs, the 159 is the more pure size, but given you like to ride fast and aggressive, I think the 161 would still work well for you. Both are going to be wide enough for your boots, IMO, so I don’t think width is an issue. But yeah for 5lbs I’d still be leaning 161 just because of how you describe your riding style. That said, the 159 wouldn’t be wrong – and if I’m assessing your riding style a little wrong (maybe you like to ride slower/in trees etc more often than I’m assuming) then maybe 159, but to give you that extra speed/stability, I’d say you’re still good with the 161.
Hi Nate,
Did you notice much difference between the 2022 and 2023 models?
Cheers,
Spencer
Hi Spencer
Thanks for your message.
I rode the 2022 model and Fraser (my other tester) rode the 2023 model. According to specs and everything else the 2023 model is the same as the 2022 model, bar the graphic. Also see my response to Sergio below.
Hey Nate, please advise if you noticed any differences between 2022 and 2023 models?
Thank you!
Hi Sergio
Thanks for your message.
As far as I know the 2022 and 2023 Mega Mercs are the same (just new sizes 156W, 158W and 160W).
Our score changed quite a bit, but that was mostly down to the scoring system changing this year for aggressive all-mountain snowboards. Which was done to better reflect what this type of snowboard is typically used for. So, the weightings have been slightly altered – and caring and turns/slashes has been separated into 2 separate categories. Crud and trees/bumps have now also been separated, as opposed to having them lumped together as an overall “uneven terrain” category. Both of these changes were to reflect that a board can be better at one than the other and we believe this gives a more accurate insight into the boards performance than lumping those factors together. Also, now that this board has had multiple testers, we averaged out our scores for it – so the rating for jumps went up a little.
Hope this answers your question
Thank you, so much!
You’re very welcome Sergio. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I’ve been riding the 2020 Regular Mercury 155. I love it, but I’ve been wondering if the Megs Merc would offer more ….??? The tech in it sounds amazing. Do you think there is much point ‘up grading’ to Mega Merc?
Hi Roger
It depends what you want out of it. If you want to be able to charge harder and get more stability at speed out of it and you’ve found the regular Merc doesn’t give you quite enough in that respect, then I’d say it’s worth going to the Mega Merc. But keep in mind that the Mega Merc will be more work when riding slower/more casually. It’s the kind of board that likes to be ridden fast and the kind of board you want to put energy into – it gives it back when you do, but not as fun when you want to ride a little more playfully/casually. For big aggressive carves, the Mega Merc will also give you more. So it’s only an upgrade if that’s what you want out of it. But you do have to give something up to get those upgrades.
Thanks Nate. Great advice as always!
Hi Nate,
Currently I have the Lib Tech TRace Pro with the bindings Union Falcon 2022 and I would like to change the board. I think the Mega Merc is a good option.
What is your advise / opinion concerning this change?
Thank you in advance
Regards
Nuno
Hi Nuno
It would depend on how you like to ride as to whether I think it would be a good change or not.
But some differences between the Mega Merc and T Rice Pro, IMO.
– Mega Merc (7.5/10 flex) is stiffer than T Rice Pro (6.5/10).
– T Rice Pro is better in hard/icy conditions but Mega Merc not bad there
– Mega Merc is a little damper than the T Rice Pro. The T Rice Pro a little snappier
– Mega Merc is more stable at speed and generally prefers to be ridden fast. The T Rice Pro as well prefers a little speed under it I’ve found, but is a little better at more moderate speeds
– Mega Merc better for powder
– Mega Merc better for big, aggressive carves
– T Rice Pro better for riding switch
– T Rice Pro a little easier to slash turns on but not by much
– T Rice Pro a little better for jumps
– Mega Merc smashes crud better
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hello Nate,
Thank you for your answer. I will buy the mega merc but I don’t know if I will buy the 155 or 157. I have 1,74 meters (5.7) and 79 kg (174 lb).
I like to ride fast and some tree’s.
Thank you
Kind regards and happy new year.
Nuno
Hi Nuno
Thanks for your message.
Both sizes are doable. I would say 157 is probably the best size, but it would depend on your boot size. If you could let me know your boot size to confirm. Happy new year!
Hello Nate,
I use the burton photon 10.5.
Thanks
Nuno
Hi Nuno
I would go 157. The 155 wouldn’t be wrong and you’d probably get away with it width-wise, but I think the 157 is the better bet and more safe width-wise. If you had smaller feet, then sizing down to the 155 would have made more sense – and whilst it wouldn’t be wrong, I’d be leaning 157.
Hey Nate,
Think the Union Stratas will be enough to handle the Mega Merc or do you reckon I should go for something stiffer?
Thanks
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
I would recommend going for something stiffer. The Strata would work OK, but a stiffer binding would be more optimal, IMO. A similar feeling binding but one that’s stiffer and a better match for the Mega Merc, IMO, would be the Union Falcor.
Hope this helps
Also, I’m riding 2021 Rome Katana bindings if that has any influence.
Thanks
Hi Nelson
Thanks for your message.
If you’re looking for a one board quiver, then the Mercury, IMO, is that. It can cover everything. The Mega Merc is a little more hard charging dominant, IMO, so not going to be as good for when you’re wanting to just cruise and, IMO, not as good in the park. It will give you more at speed and on a big high speed carve, but the Mercury is still pretty good in that area and more versatile in that it’s better in other areas than the Mega Merc. Both are decent in powder, so they won’t be bad there or anything. But they’re not optimal for powder or anything.
I think a multi board quiver will always give you that option to be more optimal for the given conditions, so while you could definitely go Mercury (and I would be leaning Mercury if you want a one board quiver) and it would work fine in Japow, if you could swing it to get a more powder specific board, it will be more ideal, of course.
Size-wise for the Mercury, I think the 160W is your best bet. 158W wouldn’t be a bad choice though, if you wanted to mellow it out a touch for when you’re cruising with your wife and kids and for the park, then you could definitely ride that board. You would, subtly, drop a little in terms of powder float and stability at speed.
I haven’t ridden the Party Wave, so can’t specifically comment on it based on experience, but based on my experience with other Bataleon boards and on the Party Wave’s specs, it looks like it would work well in trees/powder. And be a good compliment to the Mercury – as in be quite different. For the Party Wave I’d be leaning 154 for you for that board, given it’s width. It should still float really well in powder at that size for you and going shorter – because of it’s extra width, will give you that maneuverability for trees. Again, that’s not based on experience though.
The Katana will, IMO, be a really good match for the Mercury. It’s on the stiffer side for the Party Wave (assuming Bataleon’s 4/10 flex rating is accurate) but would still work.
Hope this helps
Thanks again for the prompt response and info.
Much appreciated, yeah I was leaning towards the regular merc, and the Party wave plus in a 154.
Just not sure If I’ll be able to find a 160w, might have to go with the 58w or keep hunting
Thanks again and keep up the awesome content.
Hopefully I’ll be able to see a review of the PW or PW+ Soon!
Cheers
You’re very welcome Nelson. Will try to get my hands on the PW and PW+
Hi Nate,
Once again, I write seeking your advice and opinions. Because no matter how many reviews I watch I keep coming back to your site. I’m pretty well researched but you’ve got the board testing prerequisites that I don’t so it’s always fun to ask.
here goes…
So I’m doing an overhaul of the board collection. I’m a dad now and my riding time is less frequent.
I’m Aiming to create a 1-2 board quiver for Australia/New zealand/ Japan riding
It’s always great to have 1 board based on ease of travel weight etc And I’m considering the Mercury/mega merc (leaning towards regular mercury) for one of those options. Or as an entire one board quiver.
So… based on my specs of 83kg/183lbs 11.5 US boot and 6’2”
As someone who is pretty limited with time on snow but has had extended experience over time who, when possible LOVES to charge hard, but Rides mainly groomed runs, and also with the wife and kids, rarely rides park but wants the option (don’t have a lot of park experience) but sometimes it happens and also want to build on my skills in that area. Also Quite often ride Japan pow & off piste – 1/3 of the time I ride.
So,
Would you recommend I get the mercury/mega merc as a one board quiver (possibly in a 160w?)or get it in a 158w and get a secondary pow board for Japan trees like a bataleon party wave/plus or something similar – short , wide, tapered directional etc to compliment it.
Or I’m open to any other ideas altogether.. haha
Not that there’s a huge difference between the two sizes of 58w or 60w but your opinions and expertise are greatly appreciated.
I was also looking at the yes standard in a 159 but do find myself being drawn more to the Mercury for some reason.
Once again, thanks for all the info and time put into your reviews and content I love the detail and love to geek out on it.
Cheers Nate
Hi Nelson,
I thought I would chime in as I spent all of July and early August in New Zealand this season ’22 and visited 10 resorts/private fields in a multitude of conditions from chest deep powder to straight ice. This was apparently one of the better seasons since the 90’s for powder so we got lucky, but it appeals directly to your Australia/New Zealand/Japan question. I did a lot of diligence in making my decision on a one quiver board for this trip as I was on the road prior and decided to buy in NZ as opposed to lug my quiver around the world.
I ended up going with the Capita DOA, and it left nothing to be desired in any conditions other than the deepest of powder. The variable terrain day in and day out of NZ made this board ideal and gave me confidence tackling each day without question. I understand this feedback is singular and I haven’t ridden a Mercury, but thought it would be helpful and definitely relevant as my guess is the Mercury isn’t too far off in general performance.
A few worthy notes:
Height: 5′ 9″
Weight: 190 lbs
Board Size: 156
– There were a lot of DOA’s and War Pigs on the mountain. These had to be two of the most common boards I saw over my 5 weeks. The other most represented brand was Nitro, but of a variety of models.
– A few and seemingly knowledgeable local shop riders I spoke with were keen on the Mercury for the NZ conditions.
– I’ve never charged harder on hard pack and icy groomers with confidence, while popping side hits with ease. Holding an icy hard pack groomer at full bore was sweet.
– The edge to edge both on piste and off piste of the 156 at my height and weight was excellent while still having very good float in powder.
– While the DOA was awesome, I don’t imagine it handles chunder (which you can see a lot of in NZ) nearly as well as the shape of the War Pig, but speed, carve, pop, IMO style, and switch riding was exceptional.
Cheers,
Morgan Nelson
Hi Nate, I’m an intermediate rider looking to buy a board for mainly carving at resorts. I’m contemplating between the mega merc vs the mercury. I heard great things about the mega merc regarding it’s quality and tech, however would it be above my skill level and too difficult for me to handle? Love to hear your thoughts. In addition, I currently ride a lib-tech terrain wrecker, would the regular mercury be too similar to the TW and not worth the upgrade?
Hi Danny
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t typically recommend the Mega Merc for an intermediate rider. Unless you’ve got a really solid technique and like to ride fast/aggressive pretty much all the time. If that’s the case, then you might be OK, assuming you like your board stiff and have the physical strength or size to handle a stiffer board. If you’re a lighter rider, then it could feel a bit too much, particularly as an intermediate rider. The Mercury is likely to be better suited, if you don’t want to have to be really on your game all the time.
The Mercury is quite different to the Terrain Wrecker, so I don’t think you’ll be getting too similar there. Even though it’s not as stiff as the Mega Merc, it’s still noticeably stiffer than the TW and noticeably better for speed and carving. I really like the Terrain Wrecker (I own one and use it as my control board) but in those areas it’s not as good as the Mercury, so if that’s what you’re looking to do mostly, then it’s an upgrade. It’s a more stable/locked in feel, less playful, more precise. And I’m gathering that’s what you’re after. Even though the Mega Merc is even more so in terms of carving and speed my instinct is that you’d probably prefer the Mercury and it would be enough of an upgrade in those areas for what you’re looking for whilst still being more manageable all round.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate.
I see that you used the Malavita for the review. Which binding would you prefer on the board. Cartel X or Malavita?
Hi Anton
The Malavitas worked but I’d put the Cartel X on them over Malavita’s if I had the choice. I think they’d do a better job of driving the board.
Hello Nate,
Currently I have a Lib Tech TRICE PRO and I would like to change. I have some doubts between the Capita Mega Merc and the Capita Black Snowboard of Death. In your opinion what is it the best choice comparing the T Rice?
Thanks
Nuno
Hi Nuno
Between the Mega Merc and BSOD, it would depend somewhat on what you were wanting to ride, though both aren’t world’s apart or anything. Some differences to note:
– Mega Merc, in my experience felt a little stiffer than the BSOD
– I would say the BSOD is a little better in powder and the Mega Merc a little better for big carves. I preferred the BSOD a little for jumps and the Mega Merc a a little better for riding switch – otherwise performance fairly similar
Could be that sizing could be deciding factor too, depending on your specs.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate, awesome review as always! So I am considering picking up next years meg merc (cause of the black top sheet) I’ve been riding about 5 years now and my style is mostly all mountain/freeride. I’m not really into park or jumps, just mostly going fast and carving. I rode my buddies super DOA and loved it, would you say both boards are similar? Right now i ride a orca, proto type 2 and a dancehaul, do you think it would take a lot of adjusting getting on the mega merc??
Hi Juju
Thanks for your message.
It would take some adjustment compared to your other boards, particularly the Dancehaul (haven’t ridden it but hear it’s quite mellow?) and PT2. I found the Orca relatively stiff, so you’ve already got that stiffer board you’re riding. The camber profile will feel different and take some adjusting, but it’s similar to the Super DOA in terms of camber profile (not the same but similar), so I think you’d get used to it fairly quickly. The Super DOA and Mega Merc aren’t super similar, but they’re not worlds apart either.
The Mega Merc is stiffer and that’s one of the bigger differences in feel. Whilst Capita rates them 6 and 6.5 respectively, I felt them more at 6.5 and 8, so I think there’s a bigger difference there. The Mega Merc is a damper, smoother ride than the Super DOA. The Super DOA a little more snappy. Then there’s some obvious differences, like the Mega Merc being a little wider and being more directional.
Performance-wise:
– The Super DOA does better for jumps, is a little easier to ride at slower speeds, is better for riding switch, spins, and a little easier to butter with
– The Mega Merc can do bigger carves, is more stable at speed and better in powder
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
HI Nate,
Thanks for your exceptional reviews. Very comprehensive and informative. Your passion for the ride shines through. I found that by using your review as a primary and adding two shorter supplemental reviews I can triangulate and get the next best thing to actually riding the board myself. So great job! And thank you!
My question: I find myself working my way back to a camber-dominant board. I’ve learned I don’t love the squirrely effect a rocker-dominant board has at hard charging speeds. I do love the nimbleness of them on cat tracks and picking my way through trees, but sacrificing the stability when dumping into a bowl or using the mountain as my race track is a high price to pay. So with that I found myself gravitating to the Mercury or Mega Merc. What is your experience with trying to pick the sweet spot of nimbleness and high-speed stability? Can it be accomplished by selecting a cambered board, but going with a slightly shorter one? Say moving from a 157 to a 155? Is that adjustment noticeable? I’m 6′-0″, 165, boot size: 9.5. Advanced rider. What’s the magic formula, Nate?
Hi Justin
Thanks for your message.
I like your tactic of triangulating like that! Very cool.
I’m not sure there’s a magic formula, but to some extent what you’re saying works. A cambered board will always feel more stable at speed, all else being equal (important to note all else being equal because a really soft cambered board versus a really stiff rocker board – the rocker board will likely still be more stable) than a fully rockered board – and the same is true, but to a lesser extent if you compare a full camber board to a hybrid rocker and then still true, but even more subtle if you compare a mostly camber, hybrid camber board to a hybrid rocker board. Again, all else being equal is important here.
Also true is that a stiffer board, all else being equal, will be more stable at speed. But then you’ve got to take into account that a rockered board or hybrid rocker will typically, all else equal, be able to turn a little quicker, particularly at slower speeds, with that pivot point between the feet – and also that a softer board will turn easier/quicker at slower speeds versus a stiffer board, all else being equal. At higher speeds, the quickness of turns of a stiffer or more cambered board evens out.
And of course a longer board, all else being equal, will also be more stable at speed and a shorter board better at making short sharp turns.
So there’s a bit of compromise with everything. That said, I would guess, based on experience that between a camber dominant board versus a rocker dominant board, the difference in stability at speed would be such that you could ride the camber version at least 2-3cm shorter and still have better stability at speed and you would gain back the lost agility – maybe not all of it but to a great enough extent that it’s worth doing, if a more stable feeling is what you’re prioritizing – and then you get the added benefit of that feeling of spring out of a turn and the extra pop that tends to come with camber.
This was a long winded way (I tend to get carried away and geek out on these things!) to say yeah, I think you can find a pretty good sweet spot by going more camber dominant and sizing down a little, IF the goal is to have a more stable feel underfoot. But it’s not a perfect storm or anything, because there’s always that compromize going on.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate – so i’ve been riding the same board for the past 10-15 years (Dc mlf iikkaa 154) and i think its time to upgrade. I really like its playful, maneuverable flex (probably has softened after all these years) but its not as fast or as poppy as id like anymore. Im 5.8, 140lbs and been riding for 20+ years but just 5-7 days a year. Mostly groomers so would like a board that is fun on piste (fast edge to edge, stable on blacks, bump hugger, maneuverable, butterable, good with sidehits) but i ride a little of everything really (pow usually not that deep, rails/boxes, small kickers). I’ve narrowed my list down to: capita mercury (was going for mega merc but then read this review), ride algorythm, lib trs and jones mountain twin. Also i was watching the olympics today and su yimings board (Burton Family Tree 3D Daily Driver Camber) looked really fun. Which do you recommend? Doesnt have to be one of those, im open to suggestions. Thanks
Hi HT
Thanks for your message.
Su Yiming was unreal (in both slopestyle and big air)! But very surprised he was riding the Daily Driver for that kind of riding. But then again, can’t say I’ve ever done anything that extreme in snowboarding!
For us mere human’s… it could work for what you’re describing, but for things like rails/boxes, buttering etc it’s one that’s going to be more difficult to tame. Again, it’s nothing super stiff or hard to ride or anything, but does take some effort to butter and whilst it’s not a tank to turn or anything, it’s not super nimble either – though that would also depend on sizing.
I haven’t ridden the Algorythm, but I like the TRS or Mountain Twin for what you’re describing. Mercury would also work, but it’s just a little less easy to maneuver at slower speeds than those other two, in my experience.
Between the TRS and MT, I think it depends on whether you want to have a little bit of powder performance (MT) or if you are happy with less powder performance and gain a little in terms of jumps, switch and spins. The TRS would be fine, like any board, in shallow powder, but not great when it gets deeper.
If you’d like my opinion on sizing happy to give it – would just need your boot size as well.
Hope this helps
Thank you Nate! Very very helpful. Im probably going to get a dedicated pow board at some point so i may go with the trs for all mountaIn. I try to go fast on piste (30-40mph sustained speed), i assume the trs wont have any issues right? Besides the ones i listed, are there any other boards you would consider (for example i had the dc ply and capita outerspace living in my longlist but crossed them out after reading some reviews). Final question, do you agree with burton genesis (other options are bent metal transfer and union falcor) bindings and photon boots? Thanks again!
Hi HT
TRS not an out and out bomber or anything, but shouldn’t have any issues for those speeds, IMO.
I think the Genesis and Photon would be a good match to the TRS. I haven’t ridden the Transfer since like the 2017 model, so I’m not sure if they’ve changed, but when I rode them they felt a little softer than medium, so might be a bit soft for the TRS and what you’re describing. The Falcor would be on the stiffer side for the TRS. Doable though – but they would be the stiffest that I would put on the TRS – a small possibility that the board will start to feel a little twitchy with the Falcor, but I think they should be just in range to not feel too twitchy.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for the review.
I’m in my 40s, snowboarding for 12 years, 6”/165lbs/10.5.
Riding style, all mountain “just having fun”, not a freestyle not a freeride, powder when possible, no parks.
Currently one the Capita Mercury 53 which fills a bit short for me.
Looking for a new do it all fun board which can speed when I want to and go slow when I’m tired (lol)…
Was thinking about the Capita Mega Merc.
Will you recommend? What size should fit?
Hi Eran
Thanks for your message.
The Mega Merc is quite an aggressive board. For what you’re describing, I think you could go with something a little less aggressive. It will give you everything you want for when you want to ride fast, but it’s harder work when you want to go slow, IMO. I would check out the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
And I’d probably even skip the Niche Story and Capita Mercury from that list for what you’re describing. Though given you have the Mercury, if you find it fun riding slow, then it could still be an option. Though keep in mind that a longer size will be more suited to riding fast versus slow as well.
Generally speaking, I would say to go with something around 155-157 for your specs and how you describe your riding.
Hope this helps
Thanks Nate,
I was leaning to the Jones MT., do you think it could fit?
Only concern is it’s behavior on icy slope, can you advice?
For my size (10.5 boot) and riding style, would you recommend the 157 or 156W?
Regards,
Eran.
Hi Eran
Yeah, I think the Mountain Twin would work well for what you’re describing. For icy conditions it’s pretty good in my experience. It’s not like the best board I’ve ridden in ice, but it’s not bad either. I would say 4/5 for icy conditions. As good as the Mega Merc, IMO.
Size-wise, I would go with the 157. With 10.5s it should be wide enough – it’s wider than it looks at the inserts, so you don’t need to go to the wide, IMO.
Hi Nate,
I bought the 157 and have the burton malavita size M with burton ion size 10.
Im 170 lbs and 5’11 in height. Im wondering if it is too small .
I havent changed my board in a really long time and in that sense im a newb but have been riding mainly on the alps. My previous board was a ride machete 158 from 2010 which was one of the best at its time for allmountain freestyle.
Please let me know what you think.
Hi Greg
Thanks for your message.
For this board and your specs, I think 157 is spot on. You could ride a 159, but with this board being a little wider than average, I think 157 is just right. If you’re going to be just bombing all day, you could go up to the 159, but otherwise, I’d stick with 157. I’ve got similar specs and the 157 felt just right for me – and riding the Mercury (non Mega), I found the 155 too small, the 159 too big. The 157 just right.
Hope this helps
Hey There! Thanks for the review. Quick question about sizing. I am 6’1″ 175-180lbs (pretty similar to your stats) and a size 10 or 10.5 boot. I noticed you rode the 157 for your review. I recently bought a Mega Merc 159 and am wondering if you think I should return it for a 157? I am downsizing from a rather large TRice Pro 161.5 from a few years back. I upsized that board because I felt like my 2008 TRS 159 felt too small.
Based on Capita’s sizing guide and other guides around the internet I went with 159 but am now wondering if I should have gone a bit smaller.
Hi Nick
I found the 157 the sweet spot for me for the regular Mercury (after having ridden both the 155 and 159). So the Mega Merc 157 made sense for me, and I think it was spot on for me. But given you’re coming from a 161.5 T Rice Pro and given you found the 159 TRS too small, I think the 159 should work well for you. The TRS will feel smaller size for size than the Mega Merc for sure, so the 157 probably feels as big or even slightly bigger than the TRS 159, but might not feel that much bigger.
For my style of riding, I like the 157 TRS, so my instinct is that the 159 will be the best bet for you.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all your reviews. Curious your thoughts on this in 157 for me? 5’9″ 175 lbs, size 9 boot, advanced rider (in my 30s, with 20 years of riding). I am coming from a traditional camber, Rome 154 (pretty stiff) that I bought when I was shorter and lighter. I was only able to find the Mega Merc 157 in stock. I am leaning towards this board (first board purchase in ~10 years) from your review and others. Would the 157 length vs 155 really cut back on the maneuverability in trees and on tight trails?
I mostly ride out east (not necessarily icy/hard conditions as we get plenty of snow, though sometimes slow from man made snow), but then take trips out west every year to CO/UT. Looking for something lighter that can better handle higher speeds and carving (some glades too) in any conditions, with some fun popping rollers and side hits thrown in, but also will not be lost on a powder day (not looking to have a dedicated powder board or rent out west). This seems to fit the bill for a one board fits all charging and carving type, which is my main focus now.
Also, how important is it to add new bindings? I am not opposed to buying new, but my current ones are in fine shape and were top of the line Burton 10 years or so ago. I am sure tech has changed?
Thanks!
Hi Ryan
Thanks for your message.
I think 157 is doable for your specs and what you’re describing. If it was a little narrower, I’d say 157 would be perfect and wouldn’t even be debating the 155. But it is wider than average for a regular width board and with 9’s, I think the 155 is within range, but the 157 is still an option. I rode the 157 and I think that was just right for me (my specs 6’0″, 175lbs, size 10). I previously rode the 155 Mercury (regular Mercury) and I felt that was just slightly too small. I also rode the 159 Mercury previously and that felt too big. So 157 for the Merc and Mega Merc are just right for me. Weight and boot size are the most important factors (as well as riding level and how you like to ride), so I could certainly see 157 working well for you.
Between the 155 and 157, the 157 will be harder to maneuver at slower speeds. And it’s not really the kind of board that’s easy to ride at slow speeds in the first place. I didn’t find it a tank at slow speeds, but it really prefers speed. So 155 would be better when you’re in trees and, IMO, a little better for popping rollers, sidehits etc. But the 157 will give you more stability at speed (not that I think the 155 would lack in that area, with this board) and better float in powder. Just better for bombing and hard carving, IMO.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Nice to finally read another review of this new board. I snagged a 157 from REI that I can return if I don’t like it, but it sounds like a 155 would be better suited to someone 5’8″, size 9 booth, 165 lbs? I’ve been riding for 25 years, but I really only like to bomb groomers at my age. Is this going to be way too much board for me, or a better alternative than a true freeride board that would be even more stiff and less forgiving? Also thinking about the YES Typo. Thanks!
Hi Chris
If you’re only really bombing groomers and aren’t doing too much at slower speeds, it could be doable. I think I’d still prefer to see you go 155 for it though. I think that’s the better size and should still be plenty stable enough for your specs – but just with a little more maneuverability and forgiveness.
The Typo isn’t quite at the other end of the spectrum, but it’s a long way away from the Mega Merc on the spectrum of aggressive to playful, if that makes sense. The Typo is a much more playful, easy going board – a lot softer, by my feel and just really easy going. Not going to give you heaps of stability when really bombing. It’s not terrible, but it’s not a bomber. But super easy to ride, easy to maneuver at slow speeds and super quick edge to edge. I think if you’re really bombing a lot, then it’s probably a bit too soft/playful. But if you’re worried about the Mega Merc being too aggressive/unforgiving, then there are a lot of options that are in between the Typo and Mega Merc. The regular Mercury being one of them.
But yeah, again, if you liked to really bomb, then I think you should really like it, but better in the 155, IMO.
If you’re thinking it’s going to be too much, then I would check out the following:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Or if you wanted something Freeride oriented, but not too stiff, you could also check out:
>>Top 10 Surfy (mellow) Freeride Snowboards
Not everything in those lists will necessarily be suitable, but check out the score breakdown’s to see what you think might suit your riding the most (and then check out the full reviews for more details).
Hope this helps
Thanks for your review on the Mega Merc.
Between the Union Falcor and Atlas, which binding would you choose for the Mega Merc?
I am 215 lbs and my style of riding is mostly freeride/all-mountain and powder. I ride heavy & wet PNW snow at Whistler, Baker, Stevens Pass, Crystal and Snoqualmie.
Hi Mike
Personally I would put the Falcor on the Mega Merc. Mostly because I find the Falcor a stiffer binding and think it’s a better flex match for the Mega Merc. And also I like the more explosive response of the Falcor versus the smoother response of the Atlas. Both would work for sure, and if you think you’d prefer that smoother response over a more explosive response, the Atlas would be OK. But personally I’d go Falcor.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you! Have a great 21-22 winter.
You’re very welcome Mike. Hope you have an awesome winter too!
Hey there, I’m coming from a 156 custom x camber and I’m wondering if the 155 or 157 would suit me better? I’m 5’8 160lbs with 8 US mens. I’m a bit worried the camrock profile would make the 155’s edge feel a bit too small, although at 1199 it’s still longer than the 156 custom x.
Thank you and great review as always
Hi Jason
Thanks for your message.
Based purely on your specs, I’d say 155 over 157 for sure. Partly because it’s quite wide for your boots.
Taking into account that you’re riding the 156 Custom X, I’m still leaning 155, but 157 becomes a possibility. When the Custom X changed shape for the 2018 model, they changed the effective edge on the 156 to 1195. Previously it was 1212. Not sure if the effective edge actually got that much shorter or if they just started measuring it differently? I would still say that the Custom X rides a little longer than the Mercury, size-for-size. But that said, the Mercury, particularly compared to the 2017 and prior Custom X’s is a wider board – so I think sizing to 155 still makes sense in this case. But if you wanted to keep the same effective edge feel, my instinct says that the 157 will be more similar to the 156 Custom X.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Appreciate the response. I have the 2021 custom x for what it’s worth. Would the 2mm of waist width and 3mm in the nose/tail of the 155 & 157 mega merc make that much of a difference in terms of maneuverability? This is a board to potentially replace that board as my daily driver. I love the custom x but would love to have something a little more maneuverable while keeping most of the speed/stability. I know the 157 will be more stable and have more float but would the 155 cause any stability issues at high speeds? I’m assuming the camrock profile would make the edge feel like it’s only the length of the camber profile of the board which is just past the inserts, right?
Thanks again!
Hi Jason
In my experience 2mm/3mm can make a difference. Subtle but still noticeable. But also the shorter length/effective edge also adds maneuverability. For your weight, the 155 should still be stable at speed. I think you would loose a little in terms of stability at speed versus the Custom X, but that’s going to be the case with most boards. My thing with 157 in the Mega Merc is that I don’t know that you’d be gaining anything noticeable in terms of maneuverability. The 157 is Mega Merc is 5mm wider at the waist, 7mm wider at the tip/tail and at the inserts you’re looking at 265mm/267mm (front/back) on the Mega Merc versus roughly 262mm on the Custom X. That’s not an insignificant increase in width, particularly for 8s. Even though the Mega Merc you get something that’s fractionally softer and you get the camrock, I still don’t think it’s going to be a lot, if any, more maneuverable for you, in the 157. Hard to say for sure, but that would be my biggest concern, going to that length.
I wouldn’t say that the camrock makes the edge feel like it’s just the length of the camber profile. Maybe when flat basing or doing pretty casual turns, when you’re not really up on edge all that much, but when you’re properly carving and really laying into turns, you’re still going to get the full effective edge to the contact points on the Mega Merc.