Hello and welcome to my Capita Mercury review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Mercury as an all-mountain snowboard.
As per tradition here at SnowboardingProfiles.com I will give the Mercury a score out of 100 (based on several factors) and see how it compares with other all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Capita Mercury 2021
Price: $559 (USD recommended retail)
Style: All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (6.5/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (6.5/10)
Rating Score: 88.9/100
Compared to other All-Mountain Boards
Out of the 36 men’s all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
Overview of the Mercury's Specs
Check out the tables for the Mercury’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
Style: | All-Mountain |
Price: | $559 |
Ability Level: |  |
Flex: |  |
Feel: |  |
Turn Initiation: | Medium-Fast |
Edge-hold: |  |
Camber Profile: | |
Shape: | |
Setback Stance: | Setback 12.5mm (0.5") |
Base: | Sintered (Hyperdrive) |
Weight: | Light |
Sizing
LENGTH (cm) | Waist Width (mm) | Rec Rider Weight (lb) | Rec Rider Weight (kg) |
|---|---|---|---|
153 | 253 | 100-160 | 45-73 |
155 | 255 | 120-180 | 54-82 |
157 | 257 | 130-190 | 59-86 |
159 | 259 | 140-200 | 63-91 |
161 | 261 | 160-220+ | 72-100+ |
Who is the Mecury Most Suited To?
The Mercury is best for a high level intermediate and up rider who wants a do it all board and likes to ride aggressively but also wants something that can, at least to some extent, be ridden slow and something you can play around on a little bit.
It’s a fairly aggressive ride, but it’s also something that's not completely unforgiving at slow speeds, like some aggressive rides can be.
Even so, still certainly not for the beginner and even a lower level intermediate rider would have a bit of trouble with it.
If you like to bomb and carve and tear up the whole mountain in a relatively aggressive way but want a ride that's not completely unforgiving at slow speed and something that can handle powder pretty well, then the Mercury should be high on your list, IMO.
The Mercury in More Detail
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mercury is capable of.
Demo Info
Board: Capita Mercury 157 (257mm waist)
Date: February 26, 2020
Conditions: No fresh snow but there had been some in the days leading up. Cloudy with variable visibility. Worse higher up.
Groomer is firm but not icy with a bit of soft on top and quite smoothly groomed. Off groomer quite similar.
Cold enough without being super cold.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Stance width: 560mm (22″)
Stance Setback: Setback 12.5mm
Width at Inserts: 264mm at front insert 266mm at back insert
Rider Height: 6’0″
Rider Weight: 175lbs
Rider Boot Size: US10 Salomon Lo-Fi
Bindings Used: Burton Malavita M
Board Weight: 2760grams (6lb 1oz)
Weight per cm: 17.58 grams/cm
Average Weight per cm: 18.36 grams/cm*
*based on a small sample size of around 80 models that I’ve weighed in 2019, 2020 & 2021 models. Lighter than average, which is typical of Capita boards.
Damp or Chattery?
More damp than it is chattery. One of the damper Capita boards.
Smooth or Snappy?
More smooth than snappy for sure.
Powder
The Mercury floats well in powder – and it’s no surprise, there’s a decent amount of rocker tip and tail (to go with a healthy dose of camber between and under the feet) which helps with float. It hasn’t got a huge setback (12.5mm back on the effective edge) but enough to help with float and it’s overall a reasonably wide board, which gives a bit of extra float. And the nose is a little longer than the tail too.
I didn’t get any real powder on this model, but I did when I rode the 2019 model.
Carving & Turning
Carving: Can lay a really good carve on this board. This board is at it’s best when you’re carving.
Turning: You’ve got to put a bit in to get this board humming but when you do it’s a nice feeling turn. But just not an ultra easy turning board.
Maneuverability at Slow Speeds: Not a tank by any means, but also not super agile at slower speeds.
Skidded Turns: Not easy to skid turns on. Not ultra catchy or anything at all, but there is some consequence to skidding
Speed
Really nice and stable at speeds. A fun board to open out and bomb with.
Let’s Break up this text with a Video
Uneven Terrain
The Mercury has a pretty damp feel (even though it’s rather light) and that helps to absorb some chatter – it’s also got the power to charge through the lumpy stuff out there.
It’s not super agile for weaving in and out of bumps, but it’s not terrible either. In the trees it’s not amazing when there’s no powder, but from the 2019 model in trees in powder it was super fun (OK, powder in trees is always fun, but the Mercury just seems to transform into a more agile board in powder and becomes almost surfy when the powder’s there).
Jumps
Pop: Really good pop, with a decent amount easily accessible but you do have to put in to get out it’s full pop potential.
Approach: Really stable but not overly nimble.
Landing: Really solid. Can stomp a landing.
Side-hits: Not ideal, with some of that pop needing winding up and not as agile as ideally would be for trickier approaches, but at the same time not bad either.
Small jumps/Big jumps: Best for medium to large with large prob the sweet spot. Great for when you need a fast stable approach and solid landing gear
Switch
Really decent for riding switch. Obviously not ideal with that directional shape and a bit of a setback, but really not too bad either.
Jibbing
Not really the best for jibbing. I would prefer something softer, with easier pop and a bit more agility. I prefer this board down the jump line in the park.
Butters
You can butter it, but it does take a bit of effort.
Changes from the 2020 Model
As far as I can tell, the 2021 model is the same as the 2020 model apart from the graphic.
Changes from the 2019 Model
The 2020 model now has a new Hyperdrive base to replace the Ultradrive base on the 2019 model. Other than that it’s the same board with a new graphic.
Changes from the 2018 Model
For the most part the 2019 model is the same as the 2018 model, except:
- The 30mm X-Arcs from the 2018 model were replaced with 25mm Amplitex Amplifiers for the 2019 model – don’t really understand what that means? Neither!
Changes from the 2017 Model
The 2018 is mostly the same board as the 2017 model. There have been a few tweaks with the most noticeable being the slightly softer flex and the new base.
- New “Ultradrive” Base
- Slightly more flexible (rated 7.5/10 for the 2017 model by Capita)
- Upgraded sidewalls
- Some other subtle things including their “holysheet” fibreglass and use of “magic bean” resin
But overall it’s pretty similar to the 2017 model.
Score Breakdown and Final Verdict
Check out the breakdown of the score in the table below.
RATING | Contribution to Final Score | |
|---|---|---|
POWDER | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
CARVING | 4.0 | 12/15 |
SPEED | 4.0 | 12/15 |
UNEVEN TERRAIN | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
SWITCH | 3.5 | 7/10 |
JUMPS | 3.5 | 7/10 |
SPINS | 3.5 | 3.5/5 |
BUTTERS | 3.0 | 3/5 |
JIBBING | 2.5 | 2.5/5 |
PIPE | 4.0 | 4/5 |
TOTAL after normalizing | 88.9/100 |
Overall the Mercury is a fun, lively, versatile board to ride and is great for anyone who wants to ride aggressive but wants something that’s not no-holds-barre aggressive – i.e. something that you can still slow down and play around with to an extent.
For the all-mountain rider who mostly wants to carve and charge but something that can jump and very occasionally hit the park with.
More Info, Current Prices and Where to Buy Online
If you’re interested in learning more about the Mercury, are ready to buy or want to research current prices and availability, check out the links below.
If you want to see how the Mercury compared to other all mountain boards or want to check out some other options, check out the next link.
Hello and welcome to my Capita Mercury review.
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mercury is capable of.
Powder
Capita Mercury 2018 Review
O.k. let’s take a more detailed look at what the Mercury is capable of.
It’s not the ideal board for riding switch, but it’s not bad either. And for most who only enter switch for short periods it’s fine. It doesn’t feel the same riding switch as your normal direction but it doesn’t feel too weird either.
Hey Nate,
My buddy has completely sold me on this board, but I can’t find it anywhere! Do you recommend anything that is comparable? He’s really talking me into getting board something more, I would say, the free ride side of the all mountain boards, something that is truely designed to bomb the groomers and can even go in powder, as opposed to something that is just ok at everything.
Other boards I’m looking at , the One LF 2020 is on sale right now at a good price , $329, but how does it compare quality wise and it’s ability to do what the Mercury does?
The terrain wrecker is something I’m also considering, as well as the arbor iguchi pro. Feel free to recommend anything else you think is really close to the same experience as the Mercury.
Boot wise, I’m considering tactical adv or swath burton, size 9.5 and I think I’ll get a 153cm in any of these boards. I’m 150lbs and just a hair under 5’9”.
Finally, I know the union strata would probably be better for this type of riding, aggressive downhill riding. That being said, at my weight. Could I get away with using the union contact pros? They’re on sale as well, and if I were to ever get a freestyle board, I know they’d be great on it, so was wondering if they’d be a good middle of the road option for both boards.
Thank you in advance for all of you help and insight!
Hi Ashton
Thanks for your message.
The One LF would be closer to the Mercury than the Terrain Wrecker. The Terrain Wrecker is a softer board than those 2 and has quite a different feel in terms of the camber profile. That said, the One LF doesn’t have as much camber as the Mercury and not as aggressive a feel to it. The Mercury isn’t like ultra aggressive, but it’s a little more aggressive – a little better for bombing/carving. The One LF a little better in powder though.
The Arbor Iguchi Pro Camber is probably closer, but a little worse in terms of powder than the Mercury.
The other option that comes to mind is the Jones Frontier. It’s a little more directional than the Mercury, a little better in powder, but can also bomb and carve well.
But from what you’re describing, if you’re really looking to maximize bombing, carving and powder, you could look at a freeride board. If you want something that’s freeride bordering on all-mountain, you could look at something like the Capita Black Snowboard of Death, YES Pick Your Line, Lib Tech E Jack Knife, GNU Essential Service, or if you wanted to go full freeride, something like:
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards
Those I just mentioned are in there and others.
Or if you wanted to go Freeride but softer flexing:
>>Top 10 Surfy (mellow) Freeride Snowboards
Or you could even go aggressive all-mountain, given that the Mercury is bordering on aggressive all-mountain:
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Sorry, I know that’s a lot of options, but there are plenty of options, if you are looking to maximize bombing and powder and don’t need something to do a bit of everything.
In terms of bindings, if you’re looking to bomb, then I wouldn’t go as soft as the Contact Pro – and I wouldn’t match the Contact Pro with a board with a mid-stiff flex. Even at your weight, it won’t be great for driving the board. The Strata would be a better option if you were looking for something that can tackle both a softer freestyle board and more mid-stiff aggressive all-mountain to freeride board. If you were going to specialize your bindings as well, then Contact Pros on your softer freestyle board and then something stiffer than the Strata on your mid-stiff all-mountain freeride board. So yeah, I would consider the Strata the middle of the road option that would be good for both boards, rather than the Contact Pros.
For most of those boards, I think around 153-155 would be a good bet. For your freestyle board when you get that, you’d go a little shorter, but for what you’re describing, I’d look in that range. But if does depend on the board too – often more freeride boards you can ride longer, as there’s less effective edge compared to overall length, so they feel shorter than they’re overall length might suggest. E.g. for the Frontier, I would go 156 for you.
Hope this helps (and wasn’t too much info at once!)
Hi Nate
I’m an intermediate, 175 – 180 lbs, 5’11-6’0” and have 10.5 US ADV tacticals.
in MTL, Quebec (groomers-hard snow + ice, rare pow unless large snowfall)
I just bought a 159 capita mercury for a good price, to go with ATLAS Medium (although Union suggests L for 10.5+), my intention was too have a one board, all mountain to do it all (free ride, aggressive carving, small jumps and side hits in the powder when available, and bit of trees).
I’m upgrading from a never summer SL 157cm (25.3 waist width) due to heel and toe drag and feeling abit small for my heigh, which is why I overlooked the 157 right away (although 25.7 waist is wider than most of that length).
do you think this will be a good setup in your opinion?
do you think medium was risky (I hear they run a bit big + extendable pedal)
Should I have gone for Large Union’s ATLAS instead?
any feedback or advice would be greatly appreciated!
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mercury 159 works for what you’re describing and your specs. If you only ever go into the trees when there’s powder, then size-wise, I think it works, particularly if you’re looking to do aggressive carving. The Mercury is a board that I’ve found isn’t great in trees, when there’s nothing fresh in there, but once there’s snow in there it seems to take on a whole new level of maneuverability. The difference between hard snow trees and powder trees was more accentuated than it is with most boards. That would likely be my only concern with the Mercury in 159 for you, would be maneuverability in trees, when there’s no powder. But otherwise, I think it should work fine.
The Mercury is quite wide at the waist for a regular width board but it’s not super wide at the inserts compared to the waist. That said, the 159 Mercury will still almost certainly be wider at the waist than the SL 157 and should easily be wide enough for Tactical 10.5s.
In terms of the bindings, I would be very surprised if you had any issues with the Tactical ADV 10.5s in the Medium Atlas. I’ve had no problems with bulky 10s in Union Ms and have had room to space. With how low profile Tactical ADVs are, you should be all good in the M Atlas, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
Thanks for the feedback! Really appreciate that.
The place I bought my mercury from just restocked 157cm (originally not available at time of purchase, and they have a good return policy), and wondering now if 157cm may be a better choice? Or do you think I’m better suited still with the 159?
(5’11, 175lbs, all mountain). For me control and maneuverability are the most important thing more than bombing down the hill. Am I wrong to think the 159 limits me to more linear/free-riding ?
(I read some other comments, and it seems we have similar specs, and I remember you saying between the 157 and 159, the former was the sweet spot for you. Again just trying to maximize my utility and versatility as it will be my only board for now).
Originally had looked at the Rome Warden 158 (25.6 waist) and the Jones Mountain twin 157cm (25.4 waist width) but got sketched out about potential Heel and toe drag.
Thanks again in advance!
Hi Nick
Yeah I think length-wise, the 157 is probably the better option, given that you’re prioritizing maneuverability over speed.
Width-wise, I’d say you should be fine. I’ve never measured the Never Summer SL, so I’m not sure how it is at the inserts versus the waist width. The 157 Mercury is 266mm at the back insert. I would personally be comfortable with that with 10.5 Tactical ADVs, but no guarantees. Based on other Never Summer boards I’ve measured, I would guess that it’s more like 260-262mm at the inserts, so you do get a bit more width there (assuming that assumption holds true for the SL. If you’ve still got the SL you could measure it. Measure it across the base of the board in the center of where your bindings are from outside of metal edge to outside of metal edge.
I’m not sure about the Rome Warden, as I don’t test Rome gear currently, but the Mountain Twin is a little wider at the inserts than it looks, particular at its 600mm (23.6″). But I rode it with a 560mm (22″) stance and it was still 267mm at the back insert and 266mm at the front insert. So just a touch wider than the 157 Mercury. At reference stance it’s 269mm at the back insert and 268mm at the front insert.
hi nate
I’m an intermediate about 200 lbs 5,11 size 10 burton, can you recommend the size ?
Hi Ran
Thanks for your message.
I would be weighing up between the 159 and 161 for you for this board. Probably leaning 159, but it would depend on what you want to get out of it.
If you want to predominantly bomb hard, carve and find powder and you’re an advanced rider, then I would go 161.
If you want something a little more forgiving and something that’s easier to ride slower when you want to etc, and/or you’re more of an intermediate rider, then I think the 159 would be better.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Appreciate you taking your time to help us all out. Like most other comments, I have a sizing question.
Height: 5’8″
Weight: 155-160 lbs
Boot size: Burton Imperial sz 10
Would a 157 Mercury be too large? It is the smallest size I can find in stock near me for now. I am looking for a board that rips side hits. If it is too large, what size would you recommend?
Thanks!
Hi Alex
Thanks for your message.
I think the 157 is a little too big for your specs, for this board. I would say 155 is a better size for you, for this board. Particularly if you’re looking to rip side hits. Also, this board isn’t bad for side hits, but it’s also not one of my favorite boards for sidehits.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
Great job! Thank you so much for your awesome review!! After reading this I think the Mercury suits me perfectly.
However I’m quite worried about my foot size and the width of the board. My foot measured barefoot is 25cm and my boot size is US8.5. My weight is 150lbs and I’m 5,8 tall. I think the Mercury 155cm matches my weight perfectly but its waist width is 25.5cm, already longer than my foot.
Do you think I should look at other boards with a smaller waist width, or I could it be that this board is just made wider than usual and I’ll be fine??
Thank you so much in advance cause this matter is really concerning me (I have read that the board should never be wider than my barefoot).
Best regards from Spain
Hi Jose
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, unfortunately it is wide for your feet – ideally you want your barefeet to reach the edges of the board or slightly over the edge, but your feet would be a long way inside the edge of the board. Sometimes sizing down a little helps to make up for that lack of leverage, depending on the board. For your specs I would already be debating between 153 and 156 for you, with your boot size, I would definitely say 153, but it’s still going to be wide for you, IMO – and not really sizing down that much, IMO. Personally I would look at something narrower if I was you. But if you’re set on the Mercury I would go with the 153.
Hope this helps
Awesome review and way to respond to all of the comments. Super helpful information throughout. I’m hoping I can add to the list to help someone else in the future.
I’m looking for an all-mountain board as I don’t want to own multiple. I ride in a lot of icy/slushy conditions here in Wisconsin but take a few trips out west each year to find actual powder and mountains. I hit the entire mountain from groomers to park, maybe 60% groomers and 40% park which is becoming less of a focus as I get to my 30s and will be going more mountain as time goes on.
I’m deciding between a Capita Mercury, Yes Typo, or Yes Standard. I want something that can last me for the long haul and hit some small/medium jumps in the park, maybe a few boxes.
I weigh 170-175 lbs and 5’10 with a size 10 DC Judge boot. Any suggestions? I’m leaning towards a 155 or 157 Capita Mercury.
Thanks in advance!
Hi Tyler
Thanks for your message.
I would probably be leaning Standard, just because it’s better in icy conditions. The Typo is too, but I think you’ll appreciate the Standard a little more in powder. The Mercury isn’t bad in icy conditions, so it’s not a no there, but based on what you’re describing, the Standard sticks out to me.
Size-wise, I would go 156 for the Standard and if you went Mercury, I’d say the 157 would be your best bet. For the Typo, the 158 would be the better size, IMO.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I got the 2021 Capita Mercury after reading your reviews and recommendations, and I absolutely loved it. It’s a great do anything in anything snow condition board. It also helped me to progress my riding to be more precise.
For other readers I’m 6’2, 185lb (probably more with boots and clothes), US10 and 159 worked well for me.
Thanks for writing the reviews!
Hi Stanley
Awesome to hear that you’re getting on well with your Mercury! And thanks for the update and feedback, much appreciated.
Hi Nate! Very informative reviews! I like the science-like apporach. I dont know if you have posted this anywhere but what is your height, weight, and sjoe size? Would be cool to know so I can compare with myself. And a tip, coulpe of Norwegian snowboardbrands to check out. Stranda, Furberg(swdedish) and Fjell snowboards.
Hi Magnus
Thanks for your message and for pointing out those brands. I’ll look more into them.
I usually put my height, weight (weight at the time I demoed the board) and boot size on all my reviews (under the “More Detail” section) but looks like I forgot to on this review. I’m 6’0″, size 10 (sometime 9.5, sometimes even 10.5, depending on the brand) boots and between 175lbs and 185lbs. When I demoed the 2021 Mercury I was 175lbs. I will add this into the review now.
Hi Nate,
I am also 6’0″, about 175lbs, and wear a size 10 boot but I can’t find a Mercury smaller than 159. Do you think that would be too big? Thanks!
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
You are literally the same specs as me – I preferred the 157 over the 159. I’ve ridden this board in 155, 157 & 159 and the 157 was definitely the sweet spot for me. There are other boards that I really like in 159, but for this one in particular, I preferred the 157. I don’t think 159 is wrong for your specs though, so it’s doable, and might depend on how you ride too. I like to bomb every now and then, but for the most part I like to find trees to cut into, hit sidehits, find things to 180 off, butters etc, so for me, the 159 was a bit big for how I like to typically ride. But if you’re more bomb hard, carve hard most of the time, then I think the 159 works.
Hope this helps
I picked up a Mercury this summer and was super excited to ride it. I finally was able to ride last weekend and from the first run I was a little bummed out on it. When carving I was experiencing what felt like the board trying to self correct back to riding straight. It felt as if there was a rubber band around the front in the board and someone was pulling the opposite direction of where I was carving. I tend to ride pretty fast and aggressive so I don’t think the board was overpowering me or anything. I did switch to a pair of Now Pilot bindings as well this year so I’m not sure if there is some sort of learning curve there.
I’ve ridden a ton of different tires of boards in the 25 years I’ve been riding and never felt anything like this. Did you experience this at all?
I was curious if the factory wax was dried up so I just took it in to get fresh wax. This weekend I’ll try it out again and I will be taking up my old Burton Genesis bindings to swap if it still feels strange.
BTW, I am 230 lbs and riding the 161
Hi Nlarson801
Thanks for your message.
I have felt what you’re describing on other boards more so than on the Mercury, so I get where you’re coming from there. I didn’t find it was bad on the Mercury. I found that it’s a board that feels better when you really get high on the edge to carve rather than “flatter” more casual turns. But didn’t experience self correct back to straight feeling to a large degree on the Mercury.
Definitely worth swapping the bindings and see about the feel you get. NOW bindings do have quite a unique feel to them, so I imagine that’s at least part of the story. Would be very curious to hear how you get on with the fresh wax and Genesis bindings.
Last week I took the board in for a fresh wax job and I ever so slightly de-tuned the contact points. I also flexed it really good to break in the core. One of the things I did fixed whatever issue I was having.
We did also get fresh snow so that could have had something to do with it. The previous day was on shit man made snow and ice.
Hi NLarson801
Thanks for the follow up. Good to hear that whichever it was fixed the issue. Was that riding with the Genesis on there or the NOWs? Would be curious to hear how you go next time you ride without fresh snow.
Hi Nate,
I’ve been mulling over the Mercury for quite sometime. I’m 6′ 200lbs size 11 boots. Been riding around 30 years if ya can believe that. I’m currently on a T Rice Pro 155. Been riding it about 8 or 9 years and as you can imagine I was a little lighter when I bought it.
As for my riding, it’s done mostly now with my kids. I’d like something a little playful, that’ll hold an edge on ice since the bulk of my riding is done in Ontario Canada. Powder days are limited to trips away, which we try and do twice a year.
I enjoy speed with hard carving a but also try and jump in the trees whenever possible so like that quick edge to edge transfer. I also enjoy finding natural features on the mountain hence wanting something a little playful. My Park riding has become very limited and jibbing is pretty much non existent. I was thinking something a little larger (between a 159 and 161). Very interested in your thoughts. Does the mercury sound like it would suit me? Do you have any other suggestions as far as boards? I’m also leaning toward the Burton Step in boot and binding combo. I’m getting sick of bending over and these seem a little more advanced then the step ins I remember from the 90s 🙂
Thanks very much for all you do. It’s difficult to find unbiased reviews online.
Thanks again
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
Yeah, I would size up from 155 for sure, if I was you. And I think your spot on with that range of 159-161. For the Mercury, I think 159 is probably your best bet, for what you’re describing. You could certainly ride the 161, but the 159 would be a little more playful and better in the trees. The Mercury I found had pretty good edge hold in hard/icy conditions. There are better if you really wanted to maximize that aspect, but the Mercury’s not bad in that sense.
Overall, I think the Mercury fits what you’re describing. It’s a versatile ride, which it sounds like you need. It’s a little more on the aggressive side of the scale, but close to the middle if that makes sense. Like if 1 was the most playful, and 10 was the most aggressive, the Mercury would be like a 6 or maybe 6.5, IMO.
I haven’t ridden the Step Ons yet, but I’m supposed to be getting sent some soon, so hopefully I can test them out. From what I hear people are certainly more positive about them than any older iterations.
Hope this helps
Hey Nate,
I’m 6’0, 190-200 lbs, with size 10 boots. I currently ride a Yes Jackpot 154cm for park and a Arbor Annex 159cm for freeriding/powder. I would like to buy a Mercury for carving, side hits, nose/tail presses, steep tight trees, and jumps. I would like to ride the board in all conditions, on and off piste. Do you think a 157 or 159 would be a better choice?
Hi Adal
Thanks for your message.
I would say go 157. The 159 is probably a more pure match to your specs, but since you already have your 159 Annex for freeridng and powder and given that you mention side hits, presses and steep tight trees, I think the 157 would be the better size in this case.
Hope this helps
Thanks for your advice Nate. Greatly appreciated.
You’re very welcome Adal. Happy riding!
Hi nate,
The mercury seems just like the board I want, good for carving and speed. But on the topic of carving, I actually like to REALLY lean into it. Would my 10 us boots drag in the snow in a really hard turn? If you say that they won’t, then I’m surely buying because of your review!
Hi Christophe
Thanks for your message.
With 10s on this board it really depends on a few things. If you can give me a little more information, I can give a more accurate opinion. Can you let me know the following:
1. What boots do you ride? – make and model and year if you know it (some are more low profile than others)
2. What binding angles do you typically ride?
3. What size Mercury are you looking at?
Thanks for the extra quick reply!
1. My boots are the ride lasso boa, and I just found out that they are in fact 11us, not 10s.
2. Although I can say that I’m a strong and experienced rider, I never really thought about how the angle affects my riding, so I’m more than open to suggestions as to what a good angle would be for aggressive carving.
3. I’m 5’8″ and 150~ lbs. I’m still in my teens and think I can grow an inch or two, max. So I thought that the 157, maybe even 159 would be better since I’ll grow a bit into it and longer means steadier.
If you actually think this setup won’t work out, I am more than welcome to seek other boards that would fit my riding style and measurements.
Once again thanks a lot for your dedication, it is really showing through this website!
Hi Christophe
Thanks for the extra info. Sizing is more about weight and boot size (and ability level and riding style) than it is about height (though I still like to take height into account). I think for right now the 155 would be the better size, but since you’ll likely also add weight in addition to height, I think the 157 might be the better bet. However with 11s and an aggressive carving style, I think it would be too narrow for your boots. There would be some risk of boot drag there. With 11s and an aggressive carving style, I would look into a wide board. For some good carving options, I would check out the following:
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
Be sure to pay attention to the score breakdowns to get an idea if the board has what you’re looking for. If you narrow down a couple of options from those, I would be happy to give my sizing opinion.
My top choices from the list are:
-capita supernova
-jones ultra mountain twin
-the assassin pro
I’m actually looking for a board that can allow me to carve well, but since I’m going to be teaching kids starting this season (my dream job), the best board for me would be something that can carve aggressively without holding me back while still allowing me to go anywhere on the mountain relatively well. Take note that I live in Québec, Canada, so powder days are rare to non-existent because of grooming. So yeah, a wide board that wouldn’t drag my boots, giving me speed and good aggressive carving, while still letting me do the whole mountain without any difficulty (the least important criteria, but still relatively important).
What would you recommend?
Hi Christophe
All those options would certainly work for what you’re describing, IMO. Size-wise, I would say:
-capita supernova: 159.5W – but I think this is getting too long for you. You might get to this size at some point, but IMO wouldn’t work that well right now, and don’t think it’s a size you’d enjoy that much at that length. I would happy to leave a little room to grow into a board, but too much grow-in and it’s not worth it, IMO. None of the smaller sizes would be wide enough, IMO.
-jones ultra mountain twin: 156W – this would be a really good length and width for you, IMO. So this is the way I would be leaning, since
-the assassin pro: 158W. More doable than the 159.5W Supernova, IMO, but I would still put it in the too big pile. All the smaller lengths are too narrow, IMO
Hey Nate,
I just broke my 156 Capita DOA after two and a half seasons of riding (~100 days). I was looking to replace it with the Super DOA which has great tech but it looks like it’s geared more towards park which I hardly ride.
I get out mostly on the east coast (VT) but will take two to three big trips a year (Alps, BC, Tahoe). I’m looking for one board that will do it all…something responsive in narrow east coast glades and icy conditions while still having the ability to float on those West Coast pow days.
Do you think the Mercury would be a good fit for me and if I ride a 156 DOA, should i opt for a 155 or 157 Mercury? I am 5’11, 175 lb, 10.5 boot. I am trying to determine if the switch between boards is significant and if the Mercury will give me the ability to power through more difficult terrain while getting enough pop on the side hits and being responsive in the trees. I’m familiar with all of the boards CAPITA has to offer as I’ve mostly ridden their boards but not so much the other big players.
Please feel free to recommend any boards that you think may work for me.
Thanks for taking the time to read this, I appreciate it a lot!
Hi Nick
Thanks for your message.
The SuperDOA is quite freestyle focused. It’s what I would call an all-mountain-freestyle board. Which is the same way I would classify the DOA. The SuperDOA is no more park oriented than the DOA, in my opinion. But neither are great in powder, IMO, so given that you’re looking for something that also performs in powder, I would probably look elsewhere. The Mercury is definitely better in powder. However, I wouldn’t call it the most agile board going around. It’s not a tank at slower speeds (assuming you’re not rocketing through the trees all the time and need some kind of maneuverability at slower speeds) but it’s not awesome in that respect either, in my experience with it.
If you were to go Mercury, I would say probably go 157 with your specs, but that said, the 155 would give you more maneuverability.
The Supernova would be one option – but I would say it’s too narrow for your boots in the 156 and 159. There is a 159.5W which could work, but might be getting a little too long to be ideal. I would be looking at either the Navigator (in the 158) or Kazu (in the 157). Both would suit what you’re describing well. So long as you’re not riding switch a lot or anything like that, I think those would be your best bets to look at in the Capita line. Check out the reviews I have on both on the site, to get more details about each board.
If you wanted recommendations from other brands still, I can let you know some suitable options, but I think one of those would suit your purposes well. You could also check out the following, depending on whether you wanted more of a double ender, to be able to do 180s, ride switch etc better, or a more directional board. The second two lists are split between “surfy freeride” and “freeride” with the former being slightly softer flexing than the latter.
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>Top 10 Surfy (mellow) Freeride Snowboards
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards
Hope this helps
Incredibly helpful, thank you for the thorough response!
Enjoy the season
You’re very welcome Nick. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
I keep going back and forth between the Mercury and the Yes Standard. I’m 6’2”, 175lbs, size 11 boot. I live in Juneau Alaska where snow conditions vary quite a bit. Wet powder—ice chunks are not uncommon. I grew up snowboarding for about 18 years, but have been out of it for the last 13, and things have changed quite a bit it seems.
I love to ride all over the mountain and am very playful. No rails, but back country, trees, side hits, and some park squeezed in.
I’m also looking at the Adidas Tactical ADV, and Union Falcor or Strata maybe? Would love your thoughts and recommendations on set up and sizing if you have time! Thank you!
Hi Levi
Thanks for your message.
Both the Mercury and Standard would certainly be suitable and I don’t think either would be a bad choice for what you’re describing. A couple of things which might help you decide.
The Standard is a little more playful than the Mercury – a little more buttery too. The Mercury, setup in it’s reference stance is a little better in powder. The Standard is it’s equal in the slam back inserts – so it would depend there if you were happy to change your binding setup for powder days or not. The Standard isn’t terrible in powder in it’s reference (centered) stance, but not quite as good as the Mercury.
I would say the Mercury is a little better for a big carve, but both fairly even in terms of stability at speed – though if I had to choose I’d say the Mercury just over the Standard for speed.
The Standard is better for jumps, spins and butters, IMO, and better overall for park/sidehits.
The Standard is better at handling icy conditions, in my experience.
Size-wise, I would be looking at 159 for you for either. Though if you wanted to keep things more playful, the 157 Mercury and 156 Standard aren’t wrong either. The shorter options would give you a bit more maneuverability, particularly at slower speeds, be more buttery, feel more playful and be better overall in the park, the longer options would give you more stability at speed, better float in powder and better for big carves. The 157 Mercury could be pushing it width-wise for 11s, but if you end up in the Tactical ADV, I think you would likely be fine – it’s a very low profile boot.
In terms of bindings both the Strata and Falcor would work. If you wanted to drive the boards a little harder, then the Falcor would give that extra power. But if you wanted to keep a slightly more playful feel, the Strata would be the better option, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much Nate! Really appreciate all your time and thorough response! I was a little nervous to go under a 160 as I grew up sizing boards by my height instead of weight, but think I’ll go with a 159 Mercury after hearing your input. Again, very much appreciated. Take care -Levi
You’re very welcome Levi. If you think of it at the time, let me know what you end up getting and how you get on, once you get a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi again Nate, hoping I could pick your brain with a couple more questions please?
My toes barely touch the ends of the adidas tactical atv. I normally wear 11’s, but have heard people size down a half on these quite often. They feel pretty good now, but wondering if maybe I should do so in case they pack out too large?
Also, with the Statta, the adv 11 fits in both the medium and large size. Little bit more overhang of the gas pedal with mediums, but it does fit with straps somewhat maxed out. Because the bindings seem a bit longer on the base than most, I was concerned about drag on deeper turns. Do you think it would be a mistake to push it down to the mediums?
And last question, would it be a mistake to size up from the 59 to 161? Again I’m 6’2” 175lbs, and the optical illusion of a shorter board is playing with my head a bit. However, I don’t want to end up with something that’s too stiff for my weight.
Sorry for the round 2 of questions. Would appreciate your thoughts whenever you have time. Thank you!!
Best,
Levi
Hi Levi
Firstly, with the Tactical ADVs, I find that 1/2 a size down fits me better. i.e. I’m typically a 10, but for Adidas boots, the 9.5 fits me better. So I suspect that the 10.5 would be a better fit for you.
The Strata does have a longer base plate than normal. I’ve never measured the large size, so I’m not sure how long it is, whether it would be too wide on the Mercury or not. As long as the bindings aren’t overhanging the edges of the board they would be fine (boots overhanging the board a bit is good but not bindings), but yeah not sure how long the Ls are. If you do end up in the 10.5 Tactical ADVs, then the M binding is even more doable boot-wise and might be the safer bet in that case, with the risk that the L is too long for the width of the Mercury.
I wouldn’t say that the 161 is way off. For your specs and how you described your riding, the 159 is the size that spoke to me more for you. But personal preference and what you’re used to riding also plays a part. So, if you’re used to riding 160+ and feel that you’d be more comfortable there, then I wouldn’t say the 161 is wrong at all. It’s on the longer end of your range, IMO, and it would feel subtly stiffer than the 159, but it’s not outside your range, IMO.
Hey Nate,
Keep up the great work, love your knowledge and good advice. Can This board be used as a Freeride board for powder, trees, bowls, and rip groomers, but that can also do jumps off side hits, rollers and natural features? What size would be good for me? I currently ride a 2019 proto type 2 sz 154 with Bent metal transfer sz M bindings, and adidas adv sambas sz 8.0 boots.
Hi Peter
Thanks for your message.
Yeah you couldn’t definitely use this board for what you’re describing. It’s not going to be as good in powder as a freeride board, but decent enough. And good for speed/carving etc. And again, not as good for side-hits as some boards, but still good. So, as a balance between those things, I think it would be a good match.
Size-wise, if you could also let me know your height and weight, that would help to give a sizing opinion.
Thanks for the reply, my height is 5’9, 165-175 lbs I fluctuate in weight lol, and a size 8 boot size. I use my 2019 Proto 2 sz 154 as a bench mark because its the only board I owned and I’m very used to it. I love how the PT2 rides and carves but don’t like the loose feeling that the rocker gives when your flat basing and getting speed, that’s why I want a more camber dominate board. I like to cruise around a lot usually when riding with friends but also like to get speed too, I think the fastest I’ve gone is around 58 mph not sure if that’s considered riding fast. Would this board be a good board to ride out in Colorado? I live in Maryland so we ride mostly groomers on the east coast but when I go out to Colorado I want to be able to explore more of the mountain and ride bowls, trees, and Powder on snow days, something we don’t get on the east coast. I got the epic pass this year and planning on staying out there for a month to ride. I want a board that can handle a lot of the Colorado conditions. Any other suggestions on boards that would be good for Colorado mountains and conditions?
Hi Peter
Size-wise for the Mercury, I would be debating between the 153 and 155 for you. On height and weight, the 153 is on the shorter for you, but I think sizing down is a good idea, given the width in relation to your boot size. The 155 isn’t overly long for you, but for how wide it is for your boot size (IMO) it’s getting on the bigger side. Going bigger would give you a bit more in terms of float in powder and stability at speed – at the cost of some agility. So for bowls, open terrain powder, etc I think you would enjoy the 155, but might find it lacks the agility you’re looking for in trees. My instinct is 153 for this board for you.
If you’re looking for an all-rounder like this some other options are here:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
But if you’re looking for a board that really focuses more on powder, bowls, speed, trees etc specifically and might be less suitable for sidehits, switch etc, then you could also check out the following. Like if you were to keep your PT2 for more freestyle stuff and get a second board for more freeride stuff/for when you’re in Colorado.
>>Top 10 Surfy (mellow) Freeride Snowboards
>> My Top 10 Freeride Snowboards
The first list has options that are a little softer flexing, a little mellower. Excuse the terms surfy, some of them don’t have a surfy feel. So, if you go for one of the ones that has a more “precise” feel, I think they could work for you, if you didn’t want to go too stiff.
The second list has slightly stiffer, more aggressive options.
Another option that’s not on that list is the Burton Sensei. I think that could work well in a 156. It’s a narrower board that would suit your boot size well, IMO, and seems like it would fit what you’re describing well. It’s not a board that I rode, because it was too narrow for me, but on paper it looks like a good option.
If there’s anything else that stands out from one of those lists, let me know and I would be happy to give my opinion on whether I think it would work.
Hi Nate,
I have US11, 170lbs and 6‘4.
I ride my union force bindings at 18/6 angles.
My boots are the Salomon Dialogue 2020, which are supposed to have a smaller foot print.
Will the 157 be fine for me?
Hi Hendrik
I think it’s doable, like the 161 Flagship would be doable width-wise. The back insert (which is what we’re really concerned about here, with it having less angle with the 6 degrees) on the Mercury 157 is around 266mm (at a 560mm stance width). With your Dialogues probably being around 31.5cm (but you could double check that length yourself), you would be looking at around a total boot overhang of around 4.9cm, or 2.45cm per edge, if boots were perfectly centered. I’m personally comfortable with anything up to 2.5cm on the toe edge (but that would be maximum) and up to 3cm on the heel edge (can’t get those heel edge carves as low of course!). And that overhang is straight across the board. That said, a 6 degree angle won’t make much difference to that overhang.
The only reason it could be too narrow, is if you really like to rail your carves – like if you euro carve, that kind of thing. I like to carve, but I don’t euro carve.
Would this be in addition to the Flagship? If not, any reason you’re looking to go that much shorter?
Hi Nate,
cool that you remeber me from the flagship question 😀
Yeah, it always has been a close run between the Mercury and the Flagship.
First I wanted to get the Mercury, but there wasn’t a single good deal for it and I would have had to buy the 2021 version with the bigger price tag.
The Flagship is still my fav but I could get the mercury for a better price and I’ve heared many positive things about it.
The Mercury 157 has the same (even a bit more) effective edge length as the Flagship 161. Therefore I thought that it might fit me better than the 159. Also its once again the middle of all available sizes.
Do you think the Mercury 157 would fit me well? Or will it be too short? It still sounds like its a good board for charging and powder.
Hi Hendrik
I would say the 159 would be a better bet for you, given you like to go longer. 157 could work, but I would probably get that if you were more looking to ride more of a mix of freestyle and freeride on it. I think for how you describe your riding that you’re more freeride focused, so I would be leaning more towards 159. Particularly for powder, you get that extra surface area.
But yeah a good board for charging, carving and powder. Not as good for powder as Flagship, but a little better in other areas (like switch, jumps etc). What I would call an all-mountain board, whereas I would call the Flagship a freeride board.
Hey Nate,
it’s a long story, but I have bought the 157 before I read this message. I wanted to cancel the order, but they rtead it too late, because they do not work on weekends. It arrived today and I measured the overhang. The overhang of my feet looked kinda fine, but it’s hard to see from high up. On the other hand the overhang of the boot doesn’t look good at all. On the front-boot its 23mm overhang on the toe-edge and 25mm overhang on the heel-edge. On the back foot it’s even worse with 32mm overhang on the toe-edge and 27mm overhang on the heel-edge. The boots were palced directly onto the snowboard at the angles that are around the same as the ones that I would use. I could send you some pictures of these overhangs if you would like to. Maybe I was a little too strict while measuring or made a mistake, but the numbers should be correct I think.
I will send this board back as intended.
After these measurements, should I still go with the Jones flagship 161 or should I go for a wide version?
Hi Hendrik
Yeah, I wouldn’t be too worried about that front binding, but it’s the back binding overhang that would be more of a concern. If you could get the toe and heel edge overhang the other way around, then it would be better, but still pushing it, for sure. Just one thing to note – are those measurements based on the metal edge at the base of the board? If so, then I’d say it would be quite risky in terms of being too narrow, and so would the 161 Flagship. But if you’ve measured to the edge of the topsheet, you might have more leeway than you think. So yeah it really depends on that. If those measurements are to the metal edge (at the base), then it’s probably safer to go with Flagship wide.
And i noticed that the “Bindings Recommended Size” for the 161 is S/M and i have L. Might that be a problem?
Hi Hendrik
Union bindings do tend to have longer baseplates than a lot of other brands – and so do Jones (and NOW) bindings. However, I think the Force L should fit on the 161. It could be pushing it though, but if you want to measure the baseplate, that would help. I’ve only measured the M force (which is 24.5cm with the gas pedal all way in, and 25.5cm when fully extended) so I’m not sure how much longer the base plate is on the L. If it’s too much longer than 26cm, then it’s borderline.
I tested the L Jones Apollo bindings this year and they are 26cm long in the footbed (25cm on the underside of the baseplate), and that’s what I’m guessing the Jones recommendations are based on – their own bindings. The Jones Mercury I tested last year in an M, was 25.8cm on the footbed (though angled down quite a bit to the baseplate), so their recommendations are based on bindings that have quite long base plates/footbeds. So not necessarily the case for all brands that it wouldn’t be able to accommodate a Large binding. E.g. Burton Large would fit easily on it. But yeah, I would measure your bindings and see how long they are and go from there. I would also be curious to know what the measurements are for the Large Force.
Hi Nate,
thanks for helping me out!
So the baseplate of the Union Force L is around 26,3cm long (only measuring the part that actuaslly sits on the board, there is a 6mm extension on the toe end, but that doesnt touch the actual base).
My shoes are 32cm long. I have measured that. Is that big for US11 size?
I have remeasured the toe and heal overhang of the back foot and its 30mm on the heel and 24mm on the toe (this time I measure with the furthest setback.
Also these are the measurements I found out about the Capita Mercury 157: The width at the front inserts is 26,5cm (26,2-26,8 depending on the hole/stance width) and the width at the back inserts is 26,3cm (26-26,7 depending on the hole/stance width).
With these measurements I should have an overall overhang of around 55mm on my backboot, without any angles.
What do you think? Should I try my luck with the 161 or should I directly go with a wider version of the Flagship? (169W or 162W)
Hi Hendrik
Thanks for the extra info.
I think the Force L would be pushing it at that length of baseplate on the 161 Flagship and on the 157 Mercury. Might get away with it, but it’s pretty close. Since you have the Mercury 157 with you, you could see how this is likely to fit. Ideally, you wouldn’t have any baseplate overhang over the edges of the board (again, when I say edges, it’s referring to the metal edge at the base, rather than the edge of the top sheet).
32cm for a US11 is about average. 3cm different from the mondo is pretty normal. There are definitely boots with bigger profiles than that (the 2019 Dialogue Boa I tested had a 3.8cm difference to mondo) and boots with smaller profiles.
This is probably fine, but only if you think you would be in that setback stance all the time and wouldn’t have any need to be in a different stance to that.
Are you sure about those measurements? I got 266mm at the back insert and 264mm at the front insert (at reference stance). Did you measure across the base of the board? Also, did you measure at the correct stance? The Mercury doesn’t have any taper, so it doesn’t make sense that the width at the back insert would be narrower than the front insert. It should be wider at the back given the setback. Or did you just notate the back and front inserts the wrong way around? Would make more sense if it was “back insert 26,5cm (26,2-26,8 depending on the hole/stance width) and front insert 26,3cm (26-26,7 depending on the hole/stance width).
Given the width at back insert on the Flagship 161 is 264mm (front insert 269mm – the Flagship is tapered) if you feel like the Mercury 157 is going to be too narrow, which it probably is, then it would be better to go with a wide Flagship, IMO, to be safe (159W or 162W).
Hi Nate,
Thanks once again!
Yeah maybe I’ve notated the front and back inserts the wrong way around. That could actually be the case as I took photos and read the numbers from these photos.
It kinda sucks to have US11 boots, because u are completly between wide and normal.
But I think i will be going with the wide version (162W i think, as I try to gain weight and want to go fast). There seem to be too many things that would be pushing it too much and I am scared of regretting it later on.
I hope that I will not get too many disadvantages because of the wider size. But safety first, I guess 😀
Again thanks for all your help! I’ll definitely recommend your reviews to my friends.
You’re very welcome Hendrik. Hope the Flagship works well for you. If you think of it at the time, let me know what you think, once you’ve had a chance to get it out on snow. Happy riding!
Hi Nate, really love your reviews and would really appreciate your advice. i sould define myself as an advanced intermediate rider, been riding for a couple of years now.. im 6″2″ with 11-11.5 bootsize and i weigh about 152 lbs, i’m looking for a board I can improve my carving on and eventually get to euro-carving.. i’m loving what i hear about the mercury but i’m a bit worried about me being on the lower side of the weight range and with quite big feet would you suggest going with the 159, would it be wide enough? and will it be too stiff for me, since this will be the 1st board i ride thats on the stiffer side of medium.
p.s – what are your thoughts about riding the mercury at slower speeds?
Hi John
Thanks for your message.
Since you’re looking to hard carve and euro carve, then I’d say it’s definitely too narrow for you. Even if you were looking to ride more casually, it would be really pushing it with 11-11.5 boots, IMO. In your case, I don’t think this board would be wide enough for you.
Hope this helps
I see, Thank you so much for the replay Nate, really appreciate it!
Do you think the assassin pro can be a good alternative? it has the 158W which has 26.3 mm waist width but im on the lower side of its weight range and i’m afraid it’ll overpower me..
Hi John
Please see my reply on the Salomon Assassin Pro Review
Hey Nate,
being this board is Directional, do you know what is the length of nose\tail respectively for the 157?
On Capita’s website and catalog I am only able to find nose\tail width, but I assume length is a much more important information in order to fully understand the design of the board.
Thanks
Hi Anto
Thanks for your width.
Nose/tail width is certainly useful to know, but nose and tail length is also useful to know and not published as often by brands. There are a few that do publish it, but more that don’t than do.
I don’t measure the nose/tail length, just because it’s a bit of a tricky measurement – to work out exactly where the contact point is (i.e. where the nose/tail technically start). So, unfortunately I don’t have that measurement. But the measurement I do take is length from the center of the front binding to the nose and the center of the back binding to the tail.
The 159 that I rode in 2019 (i.e. what this review is based on) was 51cm from center of front binding to nose and 48cm from center of back binding to tail. I recently rode the 2021 model in a 157, which was 52cm to nose and 49cm to tail (note that I rode it with a narrower stance width, hence why it was actually a longer distance on the shorter board). But both are 3cm difference.
By my calculations with an effective edge setback of 12.5mm (1.25cm), if you were to center up on effective edge, then there would be 49.75cm to nose and 49.25cm to tail on the 159 and 50.75 to nose and 50.25 to tail on the 157 (at the stance widths I rode them at). So that looks like a 0.5cm longer nose vs tail. I don’t know what the length of that nose and tail is, but the difference between the nose and tail that I work out. So quite a very subtle difference.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
yes, it does help and it’s very clear.
I assume you’re saying that both set of holes are drilled with a 1.25cm setback from where they should be if they were centered, so to be centered on the effective edge you add\remove that 1.25 to the distance from tail\nose to center bindings.
What does confuse me though, is you reply to Eran a few posts below, where you recommend him to move only the front binding 1.25cm out from reference stance in order to be centered on the effective edge, while here you seem to be moving both of them.
Am I missing something?
Thank you
Hi Anto
My apologies, it was me that was confused! Shouldn’t have been replying to comments on a lazy Sunday! I was working that out with a 25mm setback in my head. With the 12.5mm setback, as the Mercury has, you could only move one binding 12.5mm.
For the calculation above, it should have been:
With an effective edge setback of 12.5mm (1.25cm), if you were to center up on effective edge, then there would be 50.375cm to nose and 48.625cm to tail on the 159 and 51.375 to nose and 49.625 to tail on the 157 (at the stance widths I rode them at). So more like a 1.75cm longer nose vs tail. Which makes more sense with the overall 3cm difference, when setback on the effective edge (i.e. 1.75 + 1.25 = the overall 3cm setback on the overall length of the board, when in the reference setback stance).
Hope that clears it up, and thanks for the correction
Hi Nate,
Great review!! Looking for a size recommendation for the Mercury. I’m 5’11” and weigh 195. I have a 10.5 boot size. Current setup is a Lib Tech TRS 159 with DC boots. I like riding everything but the park. Groomers, trees, powder. When riding with friends on groomers we usually just bomb it down. Also like to do small jumps, nothing crazy. What size would you recommend in the Capita Mercury?
Thanks,
Joe
Hi Joe
Thanks for your message.
For your specs and how you describe your riding, I think the 159 would be the best bet. You could get away with both the 157 and 161, but I think the 159 is the best balance in sizing for the Mercury for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey great review, I’m really looking at the 2021 Mercury but I have size 12 boots and I’m a little worried about the fit. Would the 161 be wide enough cause I’ve heard mixed things.
Hi Luke
Thanks for your message.
Think it would be on the narrow side for 12s, for sure. Width at inserts for the 161, I would estimate at:
Back insert: 270mm
Front insert: 268mm
Not undoable, but will depend on a number of factors. Firstly, what is the make/model of your boots? Some boots are bulkier than others. Also what angles do you ride. With a straighter back binding angle you’d have less leeway than more angle. Also, aggressively you ride will also factor in. If you like to carve hard and get really up on your edges, then that will increase the chance of boot drag.
For example, if you have an average profile boot, a 12 will be around 33cm in outersole length. If you’re back foot is 0 degrees, then you’re looking at a total overhang of around 6cm (3cm per edge if boots perfectly centered). That would be doable if you were quite a casual rider that didn’t carve that deep, but I’d say too narrow if you ride even a little aggressively. A bit of angle on that back foot or a lower profile boot, make it more doable.
Hope this gives you more to go off
I’m thinking of picking up some Salomon Dialogue boost in 11.5 and i ride at about nine degrees front and back.
Hi Luke
The last Dialogue I rode were quite bulky, but that was the 2019 model. The 2020 model (and I’m assuming the 2021 model) are supposed to have actually become much more low profile. That with 9 degrees and the fact you’re going down to 11.5s make it more doable for sure. I would personally be comfortable with that setup on the 161 Mercury (assuming the new Dialogue’s are in fact quite low profile). I’m not a casual rider, but I’m also not the most aggressive rider either – so unless you’re like euro carving or something, I think you’ll likely get away with that setup.
Hi Nate!
Looking at the new Capita Mercury 2021!! Im about 5’9, 185 pounds 9.5US boot intermediate rider (3 seasons). Looking for a board that will last me for a while!!! My type of riding is all mountain freestyle more jump line. Little to no park!! I generally ride resort but would like to take it off piste and find side hips, lips, rollers and jumps all around the mountain.
1. Have you tried/demo the new capita mercury 2021?? Thoughts?
2. 155 or 157cm for my type of riding?
Hi Tee
Thanks for your message.
Yes, I rode the 2021 Mercury recently. Nice board for sure. It’s got some good energy on a carve and still good for jumps, rollers etc. It’s the kind of board you want to have a solid technique to get on. It’s on the more advanced side of things. It’s aggressive for the most part, but you can tone it down a bit too when you need to.
For your specs, assuming a relatively advanced level, I would go 157.
Hope this helps
Hi Nate
“Not the most forgiving of skidded turns but you can get away with them to an extent when you get off your game a little bit – but not the easiest board to skid your turns on – hence why I would recommend this for high-end intermediate and up riders.“
As I understand skidded turns are when you “slipping” your board from side to side using your back leg.
What between forgiving board and skidded turn?
What will be the wick side of the Mercury on skidded turn and how it’s gonna effect the fun ride (as I red the 2020 model a bit more forgiving)?
Hi Matan
Thanks for your message.
Yeah skidded turns are essentially when you skid the back end of the board. When you’re not leaving clean thin lines behind you – often beginners will skid most of their turns to an extent but as they progress it’s sometimes a clean turn until near the end of the turn when they use that skidding motion to check their speed before changing edges. Most (or at least I speak for myself) still skid the occasional end of a turn sometimes.
I guess the term “forgiving” is quite ambiguous. But I would say that how easy it is to skid turns is definitely a part of it though. But a board can be forgiving in other ways too. Landings can be more forgiving on some boards for example. And in some ways you could even refer to forgiving, even if it’s maybe not strictly adhering to the definition of the word, as a board that doesn’t take much energy to ride. A board where turning is physically easy.
I recently rode the 2021 Mercury (I didn’t ride the 2020 model). I didn’t find the 2021 model any more forgiving than the 2019 model. I didn’t ride them back to back of course but the 2021 model is still a semi-aggressive board that isn’t overly “forgiving”. Still the kind of board that you’ve got to put some energy into to get the best out of it. When you do put that energy in, it’s a board that gives back. It’s not at the upper end of the scale in terms of boards that require you to put a good amount of energy in, but it’s not a super easy going or playful board either. On a scale of playful to aggressive, it’s on the agressive side of middle. Not the most aggressive going around but more aggressive than it is playful.
Hope that makes sense and helps
Thanks Nate
You clarify it very well
You’re very welcome Matan. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the good work, great reviews and detailed answers, it’s mean a lot to us.
I’m 180, 68kg, 10.5, looked for a Do It All board.
I liked the Mercury reviews and wanted it to be a bit more playful so I bought the 53 with your recommendation.
Regarding bindings setup.
with the Capita recommended setup the board has a half inch set back.
If I move only the front binding a half inch forward will it be a True Twin or there is a set back at the board shape / construction?
I will appreciate if you can explain a bit the “Twinish” term.
Best regards,
Eran.
Hi Eran
The half inch setback is the setback along the effective edge of the board. So if you wanted to be centered on the effective edge and your bindings allow you to move the front binding a half inch forward you would be centered on the effective edge. The Mercury’s nose (outside the contact points) is longer than the tail – so on the overall length of the board, you would still be setback. Personally I would stay on the reference setback. It’s not a huge setback – and that’s where the board is designed to be ridden. But yeah, you could essentially center up on effective edge. But no, it won’t be a true twin by doing that – as you’ll still have more nose than tail – it’s not a board that you can make into a true twin. And I definitely wouldn’t do a set forward stance on effective edge, in order to be centered on the overall length. That would feel off.
I don’t use the term “twinish” but imagine it probably means something like Directional Twin. The Mercury is what I would say is directional twin. Which is essentially that it’s mostly twin, but has that longer nose vs tail. Some directional twins have a setback stance and others don’t.
Hope this explains it
Thanks a lot.
So if I would like to increase the stance width (Usually riding 23”) but still not effect the “shape” and riding filling , I can move one insert to the nose and one to the tail, is that correct?
That way I will be keeping Capita’s recommendation…
Meaning One insert movement for each side related to the Capita recommended one on the board…
Hi Eran
Yeah, if you want a wider stance, but want to keep the setback stance the board is designed with, you could definitely move the front binding one spot towards the nose and the back binding the same distance towards the tail
Thanks a lot Nate
You’re very welcome Eran. Happy riding!
Hi Nate,
In order to get my favorite 23” stance width I should move the front binding one spot towards the nose but the back binding TWO spots towards the tail.
Will it work?
Now my setback is about 1”, isn’t it?
How this setup gonna affect my ride (if at all)?
Hi Eran
I’m not sure of the reference stance on the 153, but moving one towards the nose and 2 towards the tail will widen your stance by 6cm (2 1/3″). If the reference stance is roughly 20 2/3″, then you’ll be getting around that 23″ mark. And yeah, you will increase that setback by 2cm (3/4″), so it will be a little over 1″. Most likely this will improve your performance in powder, but will be less suitable for riding switch. With the wider stance it will likely feel more stable, but a little less maneuverable (at least that’s the experience i have from stance widths). I’d say this is a doable stance on the Mercury. It will feel different for sure, but it shouldn’t feel weird or “off” or anything.
Hi Nate,
Thanks for all the great reviews!
I currently ride the Neversummer Warlock and I am looking to get a new board that is more all-mountain. Mainly want a board that is more stable at speed and better at carving, but not sacrificing too much on buttering. I mostly ride the groomers and maybe spend 20% of the time in the park, but no rails only small to medium jumps and boxes. I like carving, doing groud tricks, and jump some naturals side hits. I ride powder when there is fresh powder. I am looking into the Mercury now since it seems to be an awesome board. I also find it to be super light which feels great.
My main concern with the Mercury is whether it will be significantly harder to butter and ride switch. Unfortunately, I cannot find Mercury demo in my area. I did get the chance to demo Jones mountain twin and Capita DOA though. For the two boards, I do find myself be able to butter them with relative ease. But for the mountain twin, I wish there could be more pop. For DOA I feel great on the board but I just cannot take the graphics. How would you compare the butterability (and other things) of the Mercury to the Jones Mountain Twin and DOA?
I think my experience on Jones Mountain Twin is pretty solid but from what I read Mercury could be a better board at carving and pop. I am also considering Yes The Greats, which seems like a smaller step up from my Warlock.
I am really having a hard time deciding here. Any input would be greatly appreciated.
Hi Albert
Thanks for your message.
In terms of butterability of the Mercury, I would say I found it just that little bit harder to butter vs the Mountain Twin, but not way off. About the same to butter as the DOA. But yeah certainly a bit more in terms of pop vs the Mountain Twin. It’s not super poppy, but a bit more vs the MT, IMO. Probably not quite the same pop as the DOA though – in between the MT and DOA I would say.
The Greats is a little softer flexing than the Mercury and MT, but certainly stiffer/more stable than the Warlock. It’s an awesome board for jumps though, so it’s got that going. It’s more freestyle oriented than the likes of the Mercury and MT, more like the DOA in that sense. If you’re not riding that much powder though, it’s very versatile and you would certainly get more for carving/speed vs the Warlock. In fact for carving, I would say it’s as good as the Mercury. But in terms of flex, it’s a slightly smaller step up from the Warlock – and not as suitable as the likes of the MT and Mercury if you’re looking to ride powder (but still a little better than the DOA, IMO). Also a little better for buttering, IMO, vs the MT, Mercury and DOA.
Sizing is important too, if you want some recommendations in terms of sizing, I would be happy to give my opinion. I would just need your height, weight, boot size, ability level and maybe also the size of your Warlock (but some people want a size recommendation that doesn’t take into account their old board/(s), so your welcome to leave that out if you want).
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
I think I am now down to either Mercury or The Greats.
From what you are describing it seems like that The Greats would be a good choice, but the Mercury is much better in powder. I ride in the Tahoe area so there is some decent amount of powder to ride each year. How does the Mercury ride in switch? Is it only a subtle difference? Would Mercury be a better one board quiver?
At the same time if The Greats carves as well as Mercury and still has decent stability at speed then it might be worth sacrificing some powder performance for some playfulness. Tough decision. Would you push me one way or another?
I am 5’10, 155 lbs, and wear a size 9 boots. I would say my level is intermediate up. My Warlock is 154.
Really appreciate your reply. Super useful.
Hi Albert
Yeah, I would say that the Mercury is a better one board quiver, largely because it’s better in powder. The Greats is one of the better boards I’ve ridden for switch, so there is a difference there, IMO. But the Mercury is definitely not bad. It’s something that once you get used to it, it’s fine, but not as good as on the Greats, IMO. I would say that he Mercury is slightly more stable at speed vs the Greats, but it’s a subtle difference.
Size-wise, I would say go 155 for the Mercury, but also consider 153. Going 153 would give it a more playful feel (whilst sacrificing a little in terms of stability at speed and powder float).
And 154 for the Greats. But you could almost go 151 for the Greats, due to it’s width (wider at the inserts vs the Mercury), but as a more all-mountain ride, I think that’s getting on the small side for you.
I think size-wise the Mercury is probably the better option – and since you get a decent amount of powder, that might be the way to go.
Makes sense. I will go for the 155 Mercury.
Will my Burton Malavita bindings work well with Mercury?
Hi Albert
Yeah the Malavitas will work on the Mercury for sure. That’s what I rode on it. If you were being really fussy, then you could go with a slightly stiffer binding on the Mercury, but the Malavitas will do the job for sure.
Awesome! Thank you!
You’re very welcome Albert. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate- hope all is well. First of all that you for the binding advise, i have bought the contact pro and they fit well with my box scratcher board. Having so much fun with this board now. Thanks again.
Second, wanted your advice in regards to stance. I got the mercury as a second board for some powder days and snowboarding in Switzerland. Would you recommend to ride it centered until i hit a powder days and then use the setback 0.5 stance ? I know the board is More of a directional Shape and i don’t plan on riding too much switch on it but thought that a center stance will make it feel more of a “twinish” board.
As always ,Thanks for you time.
NZ
Hi NZ
Good to hear from you again and awesome to hear that you’re Contact Pros are working well for you.
Typically I like to ride with the setback of the board, but that doesn’t mean that’s always the case. However, with the Mercury, the setback is that 0.5″ (12.5mm) which makes it tricky to center properly. If you want you could try it, but I find that with such a small setback that I would just leave it in it’s reference stance. I would actually be more inclined to ride it with 0.5″ setback usually, then on powder days set it back a little more.
Thank you
You’re very welcome NZ
Nate, thanks for the detailed review. Like most, I’m just questioning size. I’m 6’ (well maybe just shy), 182lbs and wear a size 11 boot. I want something that is good all over the mountain but will be using this in powder too. I just picked up the 159 but now I’m second guessing that thinking I should have went with the 157. Any feedback?
Hi Kyle
Thanks for your message.
I think you’ve made the right call with the 159. For a combination of your height, weight and boot size, I think it’s the right fit. If you had like size 9-10 boots, then I would probably lean towards 157 for you, but with 11s, I think the 159 works best. As it’s just a little wider than the average board, it’s something that I like to size down just a little for. Where I would usually ride a 158-160 in an all-mountain board, I would ride the 157 for this (6’0″, 185lbs, size 10 boots). But if my feet were 1cm longer – or even 1/2cm longer, I would likely go for the 159. The only reason I would go 157 is just that it’s that little bit wider, but if you wear 11s you don’t need to worry about that. In fact, the 157 might be pushing too narrow for 11s. So yeah, overall i think the 159 is the way to go for you.
All this assuming at a least a solid intermediate level or higher.
Hope this helps
Really appreciate the help! Thanks for taking the time to answer everyone’s q’s on here. Cheers
You’re very welcome Kyle. Thanks for using the site. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
Thanks for you review and replies on comments, very useful. I’ve decided on Mercury after this post. I had 2 questions:
1) How do you think this board will work with burton step on bindings?
2) I’m 178 / 82kg / 43 Boot – Looking at Capita website, 159 seemed better size but reading your replies, I’m leaning on 157. I would prefer 159 because of weight, but 157 could be more flexible and easier to maneuver?
Thanks!
Hi Kaho
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden Burton Step Ons, but I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t work with the Mercury. They are “Re:Flex”, so should work just as well as any Burton reflex binding does. The last time I rode the Mercury it was on my Burton Malavita Re:Flex bindings, and they worked well.
In terms of size, I’d say you’d be fine on either the 159 or 157. Personally I’d be leaning 157 for this board, with your specs. The main reason is that it’s just a little wider than normal. Not massively. It’s not that much wider at the inserts vs it’s waist width, so it’s not quite as wide as it looks but still feels subtly wider overall, which for me I like to just take a little off in terms of length when a board is a little wider. And yeah, the 157 will feel subtly softer flexing and easier to maneuver, plus be a little better in trees and more suitable for freeestyle vs the 159. The 159 would give you a little more float in powder and stability at speed.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi, thanks for the great reviews.
I cant decide me beetwen the Capita Mercury and the Capita Super DOA. I look for a allrounder, that means i like to carve, powder, speed runs and also to jump. I`m 172cm and 198lbs, size boot Uk 8.5. Can you say me wich one you prefer or can you prefer a other board.
Thank you very much for your help.
Hi Osman
Please refer to my reply to your other message on the Top 10 All-Mountain Snowboards post
Hey man, I’ve been riding a 159cm 2017 ride berserker for the last couple years (100ish days per season) and it just died on me. Looking for a replacement that does switch a little better but rides nearly as aggressive as the berzerker. I’m 5’11 180lbs and 9.5 maysis with now drive mediums. Was thinking 157 or 159 , I just don’t know how the 159 would feel as a more twinish shape on the Mercury compared to a 159 more directional berserker? What do you think? Looking to ride everyday all over, even when it’s deep without any sacrifice on deep days.
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
I don’t think you’d sacrifice anything powder-wise by going to the Mercury, if you go size for size. It’s less directional but it’s also has more surface area, and based on my experience with the 2 boards those 2 things cancel out, powder-wise.
You would of course have to get used to a wider board. For reference, the Mercury 159 would be roughly 267mm at the inserts vs the Berzerker 159 which is roughly 255mm at the inserts (quite a narrow board for a 159). Going 157 in the Mercury would be subtly narrower, but you would also loose in terms of stability at speed and float in powder, so if you were trying to keep things close to as aggressive as the Berzerker, then going shorter be mellowing it out a bit and it’s already not quite as aggressive, IMO.
In terms of being as aggressive, I wouldn’t say the Mercury is as aggressive as the Berzerker. I found the Berzerker quite an aggressive board. But you can still get relatively aggressive on the Mercury, but just not quite to the same extent as the Berzerker, IMO.
If you were happy to go a little stiffer, you could check out the following for more options:
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
But I think the Capita Mercury would be suitable for what you’re describing, it largely depends how close you want it to be in terms of aggressiveness and if you think the extra width would be an issue or not.
Hope this helps with your decision
HI Nate,
I am 6,2 weigh 190 and have size 11.5. I am leaning towards the mercury and just want to know your opinion on whether the 161 is really going to be a big difference to the 159. I do a lot of glades/ tree riding, as im on the east coast, so thats my rational to grab the 159. but I really like the idea of having more float and being more aggressive. Do I lose a decent amount of agility with the longer board or is it just marginal?
thanks
Hi Dave
Thanks for your message.
In terms of agility between those sizes, I would say that it’s noticeable. Not massive, but noticeable. I haven’t actually ridden the Mercury in the 159 to 161 head to head of course, but I have tested 2 of the same board in 2 sizes head to head before (2cm difference) and could certainly notice the differences. For everything, including agility, it’s noticeable but subtle, IMO.
So, it would depend if you value agility more or if you value float/aggressiveness more. You’ll get sublty more float, more stability at speed and subtly more aggressive carves out of the 161. But the maneuverability, particularly at slow speeds, will be subtly better on the 159.
I think though my biggest concern would be width for you, with 11.5s. The width at inserts on the 159 is around 266mm and on the 161 that would go up to around 268mm. For 11.5s I would say you’d want minimum 270mm at the inserts, so I feel it’s pushing it, in terms of being a little narrow. If you’re not concerned about that – if you typically ride regular width boards without issue or if you don’t tend to get high on your edge on carves, then it will probably be fine, but that’s certainly something to consider. Even thought the waist width sounds like it’s a little wider, there’s not a lot of difference between waist and inserts, in terms of width, so it’s maybe subtly wider at inserts than most regular width boards, but not by as much as you’d think.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
Thanks for your response I’ll definitely consider what you’ve mentioned here. I like the standard too, I know going for that board would solve the waist width issue.
Hi Dave
Yeah, going Standard 159 would certainly be no issues width-wise
Hey Nate!
I`m intermediate ride who travel to some resort twice a year. I`m looking for a do it all board, able to have good curvings and stability but as same time very play full in parks and good experience in powder days. I`m also looking for a board to help me to develop skills. Do you think this is a board for me?
I also had looked the Capita Super DOA and GNU Riders Choice. Do you think the Mercury as a best option?
I´m a 5´1 and 175 lbs with a size 10.0 US Boot, witch size of board would you recommend for me?
Thanks for your support!
Cassiano
Hi Cassiano
Thanks for your message.
Not sure if you got my reply from your comment on the GNU Rider’s Choice post, but if you didn’t you can check it out there – GNU Rider’s Choice Review Comment Reply
I think the Mercury has you covered for everything except the “very playful in parks part”. In terms of carving, stability and powder, I think the Mercury has it over the Rider’s Choice. However, the Rider’s Choice will be more playful. And still pretty good at those other aspects, but not as good. To get something that’s “very playful” and at the same time very stable is a difficult prospect, because to be playful, it can’t be that stable, in some sense, so there’s a compromise on both fronts, if you’re just going for a one board quiver. I think the Rider’s Choice is probably a really good in between. But if you value that stability/carving/powder more than you value being playful in the park, then the Mercury will be better suited.
Hope that makes sense, and helps with your decision
Hi Nate!
Sorry, I did not see you answer from my other comment.
Thanks a lot for your help!!
I guess the Riders Choice is gonna be a good option as you mentioned.
Thanks,
Cassiano
Hi Cassiano
All good, and you’re very welcome. Yeah, I reckon the Rider’s Choice would work well for you. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate,
I’m looking into buying the 2020 Capita Mercury. I’m 5’11, 170 lbs, and wear 10.5 Ride Lasso boots with Union Falcor bindings. I’m planning on getting the 157, but wanted to check and see if you thought the width would be too small for my boot size and bindings.
Thanks!
Michael
Hi Michael
Thanks for your message.
I agree that the 157 would be a good length for you. In terms of the width, the width at inserts on the Mercury 157 is around 264mm. I’m guessing you’re on Large Falcor’s? If so, I’m not entirely sure on the length of the base plate. On the Medium Falcor, the base plate, on the underside is around 225mm and on the top of the footbed is 252mm. I imagine that the Large Falcor is going to be around 20mm longer, give or take 5mm. So probably around 245mm on the underside of the base plate and around 272mm on the top of the foot bed. So, you would likely get a little bit of overhang with the footbed (given that I’m close with that estimation – if you already own the Large Falcors, you could double check this for yourself).
But I think that would work fine. I definitely wouldn’t want any overhang of the baseplate, but there is a good angle up from the baseplate to the top of the footbed, and I think you’d be fine.
In terms of boot-size for that width, again, I think you should be good. The Lasso I measured was 2.3cm longer than it’s mondo. So a 28.5 Mondo on the 10.5 Lasso would mean around a 30.8cm or 308mm overall boot length. That’s around a 4.4 overall overhang (with bindings at a zero degree angle), which (given an even centering of boots) is a 2.2cm overhang per edge. I would be comfortable with that personally. With US 10s (Vans Aura I measure at 30.3cm overall length), I haven’t had any issues going as narrow as 255mm at the inserts – which would be roughly the equivalent of 260mm with your boots. So with a 264mm width I would be comfortable with your boots on the 157 Mercury. Of course everyone rides differently, but hopefully this has given you something to go off.
Hi Nate,
Thanks this is really helpful! I think the 157 will work great.
Best,
Michael
You’re very welcome Michael. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hey Nate,
Quick question. With my weight of 143 lbs., and wearing US mens boot size 8.5 would the 153 cm Capita Mercury with 253 mm waist width be too wide for me or would it still be good? On evo.com it says up to 10.5 boot size on the mercury 153 cm.
Hi Colton
The Mercury 153 is likely to be around 259mm at the inserts. The Mercury is one of the boards that sounds wider looking at the waist width than it is. There isn’t a big difference between the waist and the width at the inserts. So, whilst it’s still on the wide end of your range, it’s not as wide as it sounds. It’s a little wider than what the Team Gullwing 152 will be at the inserts (around 256mm) and similar to the Slash Brainstorm 151 at the inserts (around 258mm at the inserts). It’s a little longer and a little stiffer than the Brainstorm and has more effective edge than the Brainstorm – so it will feel bigger overall than the Brainstorm. Will also feel subtly bigger than the Gullwing too.
It’s doable for sure but just to make sure you have all the info, it will likely feel a little bigger than the other 2, and is a slightly more aggressive feeling board vs the other 2. The Brainstorm being the most playful of the 3 and the Team Gullwing in the middle. Not sure if you’re looking for something more playful, more aggressive or in between, but just to give you a feel for the boards.
Nate,
Love the content! I’m set on the 2020 Capita Mercury but can’t decide between 159 and 161. I’m 6’1, hover around 198 lbs, size 11 boots. I don’t do much park stuff but go for speed, carving, small jumps and powder. Thanks!
Hi Matthew
Thanks for your message.
Given your specs and how you like to ride, I would go 161 for you. I think that would be a great fit for you.
Hi Nate
Great work on the review site, it is very informative.
I am trying to decide on a new board and am looking at the 2020 Capita Mercury and Yes Typo. I am 5’11 and 80kg with a size 10.5 boot. I have been riding for years and would say I am at an advanced level. Ideally I wan’t a board that is fun and playful that can handle itself all over the mountain with a more freestyle oriented approach – including a few laps through the park (jumps and rails) from time to time.
I am concerned that the Mercury might be slightly too stiff. I think I can handle the stiffness, but am looking for a board to be playful at the same time.
I am in New Zealand, so we don’t get many powder days and often have hard icy conditions so need a board with decent edge hold. I am currently on a 159 TRS from 2012 which I find is a bit catchy and not super stable when playing around on it. It is good at speed but pretty average in powder.
Thoughts on the Mercury vs Typo or is there something else that might suit?
Thanks in advance.
Ben
Hi Ben
Based on what you’re describing, I think the Typo would be a great choice. Playful but stable too and good in hard/icy conditions. The Mercury is just a little better in powder vs the Typo, but it’s more aggressive, stiffer (like you say) and overall more freestyle oriented. I wouldn’t describe the Mercury as playful, but I would describe the Typo as playful – but without being overly soft or loose.
If you’re looking for playful all-mountain, that’s still good in powder, then something like the Slash Brainstorm is also a good option – though less freestyle oriented than the Typo, but better in powder. The Custom Flying V probably fits the bill too – though not as good in hard/icy conditions. Those 3 (Typo, Custom Flying V and Brainstorm) would be the most playful from my Top 10 All-Mountain list:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
sorry
‘than’
I thought the feeling more like losing control than catching on edge.
Because I could turn around, but fall on speed or something else.
Hi Wess
Thanks for your message.
Certainly not surprised that you felt the LTR as shaky and unstable at speed. It’s very much a beginner board “Learn to Ride” and not made to handle too much speed. Soft and yeah likely a lot of rocker going on. Not a board I’ve ever ridden but certainly not made to ride aggressively at all.
The Mercury would be a big jump from something like that. Much stiffer and more aggressive. It’s not the stiffest and most aggressive board going around that’s for sure, but compared to the LTR it is. Certainly a challenging ride for anyone less than solid intermediate. If you want the one and only board ever in your life you could certainly grow into it, but maybe not ideal for right now. But it sounds like you could certainly handle, and really benefit from, something with a bit more performance than a beginner, rental board like that. The only question is whether the Mercury would just be that one step too far?
You could also check out the following, to see if there’s something in there that sounds to your liking:
>>Top 10 Intermediate Snowboards
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
Hope this helps with your decision
Thanks so much
I still wonder that,
Every reviewers said the board is for experts or far from now or bringing some trouble to beginner to intermediate.
Because of what feature of this board?
too stiff to initiate a turn ?
too easy(effortless) to turn?
too fast? (accumulate speed easily?)
easily catch edge ?
need bend the board to turn ?
or anything else ?
sorry for bothering you
thank you
hard to balance?
Hi Wess
Mostly to do with a combination of the stiffness and the camber profile. The camber profile alone isn’t that technical, but combined with that slightly stiffer flex, makes it less forgiving of errors and less forgiving of skidded turns than other slightly softer boards. It’s certainly not an overly catchy board, or the most technical or stiffest etc going around but you want to have a decent technique to ride it well, and whilst it will skid a turn when you need it, it’s not the easiest. Certainly for a solid intermediate rider it should be fine though.
Thanks.
Due to I hope to play carving advance to more stable camber board with more decent jump.
And I also like to play switch with more butter tricks.
So I hope to find camber board with easy press profile, so I found this board with good press, because most stable camber boards are not easy to press.
I also found a low level all mountain board said easy to press, it’s DC ply .
Could you give some suggestion? Does that suit to me ?
Hi Wess
I don’t test DC boards, so not sure about that one. But I wouldn’t say that the Mercury is super easy to butter. Not the hardest ever, but also not that buttery.
For an all-mountain board, that is stable and is a hybrid camber profile, like the Mercury – and is easier to butter I would look at the following:
– Rossignol One LF
– YES Standard
– YES Typo
– YES Libre
– Slash Brainstorm
And these are all good intermediate level boards too. I would look at one of those, based on what you’re describing.
Hope this helps
Dear Sir :
I am not quite sure what level I am.
I used to rent board (Burton LTR, soft maybe rocker? I think) in the past.
And in resent two years(about ten riding days) I started to watch lots of teaching video online.
Now I could use Burton LTR to do qucikly edge roll even little carving to grab edge on green groomed runs, adding some ollie or nollie on green runs. And I could use Burton LTR pressing through a little powder. And I could switch ride on green runs, too.
But when riding or carving on uneven terrain or red runs, I am easy to fall if I’m too aggressive turn(fast), I thought the feeling more like losing control then catching on edge, but I am not quite sure.
So I wondering that if I want to choose the ‘one’ and only one board in my life.
Does capita mercury snowboard suit for me ?
I saw this review said “this board it not for the beginner and even a lower level intermediate rider would have a bit of trouble with it”
Thanks man.
You’re doing a great job.
You’re very welcome CJ. Hope you have an awesome rest of your season!
Hi Nate,
Many thanks for your website and reviews – really, ‘re useful stuff.
I’m struggling to decide between Mercury 159 or 161. I’m 180cm, 72kg and wear Adidas Tactical 11.5 US size. I would go for 159 but is it wide enough for my boots?
Any advice is much appreciated.
Cheers
CJ
Hi CJ
Thanks for your message.
I agree that the 159 would be the better length for you, and that it’s only the width that would be the concern there. Here are some calculations that will hopefully help you to make that decision.
The Mercury 159 is 266mm (26.6cm) at the back insert.
I have measured a Tactical 12 in the past. It was 31.7cm long on the outersole – which is just 1.7cm longer than the Mondo. The Mondo on the 11.5 should be 29.5cm – and assuming the same level of reduced foot print, then the outersole on the 11.5 should be around 31.2cm.
That would mean a total overhang of 4.6cm (2.3cm on toe and 2.3cm on heel if boots perfectly centered). With some angle on your bindings, I think that would be perfectly fine – I would personally be comfortable with that. If you ride with a very straight back binding, then it’s more risky but still doable, especially if you were to put a little more overhang on the heel and a little less on the toe.
Usually I would say don’t risk it with an 11.5 on the 159 Mercury, but given how much the Tactical ADV is reduced (and if you want to be sure of the length of yours I would encourage you to measure it) you might just get away with it.
Also consider how hard you like to carve – if you like to get really high on your edges on your carves – like euro carves, and you have a fairly straight back binding angle, then it might still be too narrow.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hey Nate,
I ended up going with the 155 Capita Mercury this year, although I really feel the drop in effective edge compared to my old board (156 Custom twin camber). I feel I can’t hold onto carves as long. I’m debating going up to the 157 mercury next year, do you think it would be decent with my size 9 imperial boots? If the ‘57 is too wide, would a Jones mountain twin be a close contender? Thanks (5’9 tall, 165-170lbs, ride groomers, naturals side hits/jumps, very minimal park).
Hi Pat
Thanks for your message.
A couple of things with going Mountain Twin.
1. The 157 MT has a very similar effective edge to the 155 Mercury – so if you’re feeling that, then you wouldn’t be gaining any effective edge back there.
2. The 157 MT has a 253mm waist vs the 257mm waist on the Mercury – but the Mercury has a much smaller difference between the width at waist and the width at inserts, so it’s going to be a similar width as the MT.
3. The MT has quite a wide reference stance, which you may not be comfortable with. You can always go narrower, but personally I don’t like to go too far off reference.
It sounds like you’re looking for something with a bit more effective edge vs overall length. You were also considering the DOA before. So, if you’re OK with a twin as opposed to something directional like the Mercury or MT, you could check out the following:
– YES Greats: 154 (119cm EE) – this is wider and even in the 154 it’s likely to be around 270mm at the inserts – sizing down would somewhat help with that extra width
– Capita Spring Break (which is being reinvented in 2020 as the Asymulator): 156 (120.2cm EE) – more effective edge than the Custom Twin for the same length – estimated width at inserts 262mm
– Never Summer Proto Type 2: 157 (122cm EE) – width at inserts = 260mm. But I would probably go 154 (119cm EE and roughly 258mm at inserts) for you for this board. THough note that it’s not a hybrid camber but rather a hybrid rocker.
For comparison:
– Burton Custom Twin 156 (119.5cm EE) – estimated width at inserts 259mm
– Capita Merury 155 (116.9cm EE) – estimated width at inserts 262mm
– Capita Mercury 157 (118.5cm EE) – estimated width at inserts 264mm
– Jones Mountain Twin 157 (117cm EE) – width at inserts 266mm (if you went a little narrower would be similar to Mercury 157, I would say)
If you want to go with something directional, then potentially:
– Capita Supernova 156 (120cm EE) – estimated 254mm at the waist – which i think would be a great width for 9s, IMO. There wasn’t a 2019 model, but it’s coming back for 2020
I’m sure there would be plenty of other options too, but hopefully this gets you started.
Hi Nate,
Read through the comments and you’re awesome for all the help and advice. I’m looking to replace/upgrade from my old 2012 Ride Antic board. I’m mainly skiing the lower Pennsylvania mountains (with occasional trips further NE, and out west) so its mainly the icecoast conditions.
I was originally looking at something like the ride warpig just b/c its something different, and those type of boards are becoming popular, but I feel like something like the mercury will give me better use overall due to the snow quality I’m on.
I’m 6’1, a 10.5 boot, and weigh about 215-220 now (hurt my back pretty good, and now that I’m good trying to drop some weight I gained back off) and I can board diamonds and some doubles (easier side of those) no problem. Mainly on groomers, some trees, some off, not really any park riding.
I do like to go fast (not mach speed), but I won’t necessarily completely just bomb a hill (unless its a smaller one). I also on days do like to just cruise down the mountain with some turns and just take my time to enjoy the ride kind of thing. You think this board will be able to handle that or is it a tad too aggressive?
Just trying to find something with the right balance as I cannot seem to find this board locally to try or even look at right now.
This ended up being longer than I thought, sorry about that and more repetitive to what some of the other questions are too.
Hi Tom
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mercury could work for what you’re describing. That or the Jones Explorer are good aggressive boards, that still allow you to slow things down and play around a bit, when you want to.
Size-wise, I would say 161, but if you were to drop a bit of weight, then the 159 would become an option – and 159 probably a slightly better size width-wise for your boots.
The Mercury is good in hard/icy conditions. I would say 4/5. Happy to give you some suggestions of what I would consider 5/5 hard/icy condition boards, if you’re looking to maximize that aspect.
Hope this helps
Awesome thanks for the advice. I’m in a last min decision between the capita mercury and the Jones explorer as is anyways.
I’ve read in the past that the mercury rides fast no matter what you do, it seems to have changed a bit this year? It seems from reviews to have softened up a decent bit this latest year compared to earlier years?
Also on some of the steeper hills for example I’ll take my time on the turns. Not stop, but won’t do the wider curves at a fast pace (this is more extra super steep groomed Diamonds or double Diamonds though). I ride with my wife and she’s not as good of a boarder yet, so just making sure that I can slow it down to keep some pace with her and not have to work super hard to keep it slow if you know what I mean.
Is the Jones more forgiving overall? Or do they ride about the same as the latest mercury?
And sure I’ll take a 1 or 2 suggestions for the hard/icy conditions. I’ve ridden the 2012 Ride Antic so long that I’m sure all the boards are an improvement as is.
Trying to make a final decision real quick as I’d like to get the board/bindings and get a few runs in before I head out to Jackson Hole soon.
Thanks again and you rock btw.
Hi Tom
Yeah the Mercury has certainly mellowed out a bit over the years. I would say the Explorer just subtly more forgiving, but there’s not much in it, IMO.
Yeah, likely than any option better than your old board for hard/icy, but here’s a couple of all-mountain options that I’ve found to be really good in hard/icy conditions:
~ YES Standard
~ Niche Story
~ Rossignol One LF
I think the Explorer and Mercury would be an improvement though and should be able to handle it (I haven’t ridden on the East Coast, so I couldn’t say for sure, but based on when I get Hard/Icy on the West).
Hope this helps
Hi Nate,
I am thinking to buy my first board, since I was rent until now.
As a brand, I think Capita is one of the best in technology, as I have red and told by friends.
Since, the most time for me for snowboarding used to be 2 to 3 times, I hopoe to make it 10 per year, The board I am going to buy I will keep it for many years. Probably I won’t buy another, since I am 37 years, so I want to buy I good one and an apropriate one for me.
I think I belong to the start of an intemediate rider, not a beginner any more. I most doing curving and from trick I am interested on switch and oli.
So from capital I like mercury 2019 (around 500 best price until now) and I have found last year warpspeed at a good discount around 330. What do you think about last year warpspeed? You think is going to be trouble for me?
I know that outspace livivng is more suitable for me right now, but I don’t want to say in few years why I did not buy a better one
As a size I think 161 is the apropriate one since I am 190cm, 95 kg, 11,5 us
Thank you in advance
Take care
Hi Christos
I agree that the Outerspace Living is probably more appropriate for right now, but the Mercury isn’t way off. It’ll take a bit more to handle initially, but should be OK.
I agree that the 161 is the best size for you.
I would choose the Mercury over the Warpspeed, for you.
Hope this helps
Love your review bud! I just left my local Evo shop here in Seattle and discussed new boards with a very knowledgeable sales guy. We narrowed down the the Mercury and the yes Standard. I like groomers, powder, off trail and the occasional jump. I’d like something fast and responsive, but don’t bomb down hills. Like to enjoy my runs and explore. I do want to feel completely connected to my board and responsive. I’m 6’2, athletic build and fluctuate between 185 and 195lbs depending on diet and intensity lifting. I’ll have an epic pass and want to settle in Denver. I want a high quality board that I will grow into and(intermediate currently) and wouldn’t have to buy again for years. Is the Mercury a good fit? And is 159 for more control the move or 161. Size 11.5 boots
Hi Sean
Thanks for your message.
From what you’re describing, I think those 2 would certainly be good options. The Mercury is a little more aggressive than the Standard and a little stiffer, IMO. But it’s still something you can ride more casually when you want to as well.
Size-wise for the Mercury, given your specs, athletic build and the fact you want the board for years to come, I would be leaning towards the 161. Also, there’s a question whether the 159 might be borderline too narrow for your boots. If you ride low profile boots and have +15/-15 binding angles, you might get away with it, but it would be pushing it a little, if you’re going to be railing carves at any point. It’s one of those boards that isn’t that much wider at the inserts vs the waist. The 159 that I rode was 266mm at the back insert and 267mm at the front insert. That, IMO, is pushing it for 11.5s. Even though the 161 is only a little wider, it gives you that little bit more leeway.
The 159 would certainly be more maneuverable, particularly at slow speeds, and would be a slightly softer flexing, slightly less aggressive feel. It’s not way off in terms of size for you, for sure, but I think weighing everything up that the 161 would be the way to go.
For the Standard, the 159 should be well wide enough (it’s the opposite at the inserts – which are wider than most vs the waist width) – and if you were to go Standard, I would probably be leaning towards that. The 162 would be doable – and if you said that you preferred to really bomb, then I would consider that closer, but based on what you’re describing, I would be leaning 159 for Standard vs the 162.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks so much man! This has definitely helped. I purchased the 159 Mercury before reading this response, but can definitely swap out if you truly feel the 161 is the better board. What would be the trade offs with 159 vs 161? To give you a little more info…I went with the Ride Insano boots(what do you think of those) in an 11.5. I also would like to know your thoughts on the binding choice. I’m on the fence about the Union Atlas vs the Falcors, both large 2020 models. With my Intermediate ability and ride style, do you think it’s worth moving up to Falcors or are the Atlas all I need? I want high quality and durability, and will have this set up for several years, but the Atlas are $70 cheaper for me and I’m not going pro. I’m 41yrs old, but I’m in good shape/lean. Don’t mind spending more, but will I even notice/is there a big difference?
Hi Sean
I’d say that my biggest concern with the 159 would be width. However, the Ride Insano are quite low profile, so that gives you some leeway for sure. If you’re not going to be riding super aggressively, then I’d say you’d get away with it, but certainly no guarantees there.
Aside from width, the main differences you’ll see between the 159 and 161 are:
1. The 159 will be more “agile” – particularly at slower speeds. So that makes it easier to control, and better in tight situations, like in trees. It will feel just a little less aggressive and little softer flexing vs the 161, but this will be quite subtle.
2. The 161 will be more stable at speed and float a little better in powder. It will feel subtly stiffer and subtly more aggressive.
So yeah, if you’re looking more for having that agility and control and aren’t going to be bombing that much, and can sacrifice slightly less float, I think you would be fine staying 159, assuming you’re comfortable with the width. And to begin with I think you’ll most likely like it more. It’s just whether the 161 will be better once you become more advanced. But if you’re not planning on really bombing at any stage, you’ll prob be good sticking with the 159.
The Insanos are stiffer than what I would have paired with that setup and for an intermediate level. But personally if I have anything that stiff in my setup, I’d prefer it to be boots over other parts.
In terms of bindings, the biggest difference I find between the Atlas and the Falcor is board feel. The Falcor has a mini-disc and it just reduces the dead spot underfoot. The Atlas don’t have terrible board feel at all, but just not the same level as the Falcor. Also, I find the Falcor is a little more responsive. But the Atlas is certainly enough in that sense for the Mercury. So, IMO, both will work well with the Mercury, just the Falcor will give you just a bit more in terms of response and board feel.
Hi, i currently ride a Burton process flying V 157 and looking for a true all mountain bord, i love riding that fluffy Pow when it comes but dont have the chances of riding it way to often, i love to hit the park,rails and do flatground tricks like big butters and such.
I am currently looking into the mercury since i like riding fast aswell but with the higher flex does it really work with those smaller jumps,side hits and butters like the Process does?
Hi Filip
Thanks for your message.
You can certainly do smaller jumps/side hits and can butter with it but less suitable for smaller jumps/hits/butters than a softer board. More tuned to larger jumps. But typically more flex also means more stability at speed, so there’s usually a trade off there.
Some options that are not quite as good at speed as the Mercury, but better for smaller jumps/side hits/butters, but a little better than the Flying V at speed, but not quite as good as the Flying V in powder are:
~ Capita Outerspace Living
~ YES Greats
~ Salomon Assassin
But these are more what I would consider all-mountain-freestyle.
Some options that are still more buttery than the Mercury, and a little better in powder than the 3 above and what I would consider “all-mountain”.
~ YES Standard
~ Never Summer West
~ Slash Brainstorm
Hope this helps
Hey dude
Just discovered this website, and its great!
I’m looking at a Mercury in a 157 (maybe) to replace my YES Jackpot 154 that I’ve been riding for the past 7-8 years. I also considered a Typo, but not totally sold yet.
At 5’8″ and 178 lbs I would put myself as a strong intermediate rider and like to ride fairly fast. Mainly groomed steeps, local off-piste, and an occasional lap of the park on the jump lines (not much of a jibber – apart from side hits at the edge of the piste).
My Jackpot has seen better days, and gets a bit lively at higher speeds, so looking for something I can hold a better carve on and stay stable at speed, but will still allow me to mess about a bit at lower speeds here and there.
Would love to hear your thoughts, thanks!
Hey man, been looking at a lot of your reviews. Love them. real thorough. Anyways ive narrowed it down to three boards. Burton FA, BSOD, and Mercury. cant decide.. I like to ride on and off piste, powder runs, bombing. Dont do any park, nor do i even like to have my feet leave the ground. (30 is too old to be getting hurt)
It looks like the last couple BSOD models pale in comparison to the new 2019. Have you gotten a chance to try it out? People really seem to love the Mercury as well. seems like a good all mountain board with a sick graphic. My roommate has the FA and swears by it. What direction do you think I should go?
Hi Dev
Thanks for your message.
I would be leaning towards either FA or BSOD from what you’re describing, assuming a relatively advanced level of riding. Since you don’t like any park/freestyle, those would give you the most for other aspects, IMO. The Mercury would certainly also work well for your style, but I think you would just get that little more out of the other two.
It’s hard to say which one. The FA is more freeride oriented, with the BSOD still more freeride oriented than the Mercury but a little less so than the FA, if that makes sense.
The 2019 BSOD is a sick board (but I liked previous models too). I rode the 2019 BSOD and you can check out the review at the link below:
>>Capita BSOD Review
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for your reply!
You’re very welcome Dev. Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi Nate, I’m really interested in the Mercury for a nice do-it-all Vermont rider. My only question is about sizing. As a small dude (5’6”/125lb), I want to go for a 153. Do you think the 153 is wide enough for a size 10 boot?
Thanks
Hi Gil
Thanks for your message.
I agree that for the Mercury the 153 would be the best size for you. And width-wise it should be fine for 10s. I ride 10s and a waist width of 253mm is always wide enough, in my experience. The width at inserts on the 153 should be roughly 260mm – a lot of the boards I test and measure are close to this width so should be fine. I mean if you ride with a completely straight back foot, have boots with a large profile and like to carve really deep/low carves, then it’s possible to cause issues, but otherwise shouldn’t be any issues at all.
Also, I think you could ride a shorter size than that, so having the width not too wide is going to help with maneuverability.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate, I am currently riding Lib Tech TRS and thinking to replace it with Capita Mercury. How would you compare these two boards. I really liked the TRS but want to find better carving board, mercury seems to have better profile then TRS.
Also, which size would you recommend for me I am 180cm tall and 90kg and riding TRS 159, do you think I should downsize to 157.
Hi Vladimir
Thanks for your message.
Yeah I would say that the Mercury is a slightly better carver than the TRS and also better at speed and in powder. I would say the following:
Carving: Mercury = 4/5, TRS = 3.5/5
Powder: Mercury = 3.5/5, TRS = 2.5/5
Speed: Mercury = 4/5, TRS = 3/5
Size wise, I would the 159 is probably best. But in saying that the 157 could work too. The Mercury is a slightly wider than average board. If you’ve got size 10s or under, then I would consider the 157. But if you’ve got 10.5 to 11.5, then the 159 would be better, IMO. But even if you’re riding 10s, the 159 is an option for you. And you’ll get a bit of increase in effective edge, compared with the TRS if you go 159. If you go 157, effective edge will stay about the same.
Hope this helps with your decision
Thank you for responding promtly. I am actually wearing size 9.
Sounds like I should stick with 159. How about stiffness between these two, I guess mercury is somewhat softer?
I know its personal matter but which board between these two was more fun to ride in your opinion?
Thank you again!
Hi Vladimir
Thanks for the extra info. I actually think the 157 would be a better option with that boot size. (that’s assuming US size 9 – if it’s UK size 9, then the 159 might be the better option, but both would still be on the table).
Even though Lib Tech rate the TRS in the 159 to be a 7/10, I would consider it softer feeling than that. I rode the 157, which is supposed to also have a 7/10 flex, but I felt it more at a 5/10 flex. The 159 perhaps more like 6/10 (but also depends on weight – I’m 185lbs) The Mercury, is rated by Capita as 7/10 also, and that to me was quite accurate riding the 159. Maybe just a touch softer at 6.5/10. But if you were riding the 157, then it might feel more like a 6/10 at 90KG.
It’s hard to say which is more fun to ride because it really depended on the area of riding. The Capita is certainly more fun in powder, IMO – and more fun to open out and ride fast on. Both are fun with carving but the TRS is more fun with normal turns and shorter/sharper turns, IMO. And the TRS more fun for jumps, spins, jibs, riding switch and a little better in uneven terrain. Also better in hard/icy snow. If it was puking and you gave me the choice, I would grab the Mercury. If I was riding big mountain, open terrain – areas where I could really open out, then again I would choose the Mercury. But if I was in a small resort with no fresh snow and wanted to hit the park and sidehits and just generally ride, then I’d take the TRS.
Hope this makes sense/helps with your decision
Awesome man, you rock.
Thank you!!
You’re very welcome Vladimir, Hope you have an awesome season!
Hi,
Great review. Hoping I could get some advice. My current board is a 2012 burton blunt and am looking to get something more aggressive but not overpowering. I’d say I’m an intermediate/advanced rider (180lbs, size 11US), mainly charging groomers and powder runs when I can, looking at the 159. I haven’t ridden a camber board before but thinking this could be a good option given the lifted tip/tail. If you have any other board suggestions that would be great too.
Thanks!
Hi Harry
Thanks for your message.
I think the Mercury would be a good option for what you’re describing.
Size-wise, it’s probably between the 157 and 159. But if you can also let me know your height, that would be great. Sizing is mostly about weight, but I like to take everything into consideration.
Also check out the following, if you did want to look at some other suitable options:
>>My Top 10 All Mountain Snowboards
And also the Jones Explorer would be a good option.
Hope this helps
Thanks for the response Nate,
I’m 6’1” so I think I’d lean towards the 159 rather than the 157. Also thanks for the additional recommendations, I’ll definitely take a look.
You’re very welcome Harry. Yeah, 159 sounds like the best bet.
Hi Nate! Very interesting review. I definitely need your advise!
I’m an intermediate rider who rides Burton Custom 2008 162cm…. since 2009 😉
Same board all my life 😀 I find it a very good board… however not really forgiving, and not that playful when it comes to buttering etc.
At first I was thinking about Bataleon Goliath. The 3BT seems like a cool option to take the freestyle skills to the next level. Now I’m also considering Capita Mercury… and few other boards (mostly hybrid cambers).
I am looking for something very versatile, to replace my Custom.
I ride mostly:
1. Normal riding, speeding, bit of carving.
2. Pow and off piste – whenever there is a possibility – I always go off piste here and there to have some fun.
3. Small jumping (not any huuuge kickers) and trying to learn some basic freestyle stuff ( no talent here ).
4. Almost no park (very rarely some basic boxes, no rails.
Would you say the new 2019 Capita Mercury could be a good choice for me?
I know it is pretty aggressive, but from what I read here and there… the 2019 is much more playful and mellow than the previous years.
How would you compare it to the old Burton Custom (classic camber)?
I am:
190cm / 6’2 – 6’3
78kg / 172lbs
boot 43 / 10
Thanks!
Hi Marcin
Thanks for your message.
I wouldn’t say that the Mercury is easy to butter but not hard either. It’s easier than the Burton Custom though. It’s also more forgiving in general. But again, not super forgiving. But overall I think it would suit what you’re describing if your main thing is carving, speed, powder and jumps. For general freestyle I wouldn’t say it would be the easiest to learn new stuff on. Not the hardest either, but not the easiest. But it could work if you’re wanting to still get something that’s quality in those other areas.
Size-wise, it’s something that’s on the wider size, so you can size down just a little, if you want and I would personally for this board. For you, I think the 159 would be your best size. And taking off a bit of length from your previous board would also help you in terms of learning some freestyle stuff.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Need help on size for the Mercury. Either 157 or 159. I’m 6’2″ 180lbs with US10 boots. Im upgrading from a 2016 Indoor Survival 158. I want something more aggressive with better float and this seems like a good fit. I love finding tree runs and jumping off anything I can find, but mostly just bomb groomers with friends. Thank you for the help and all the reviews you do.
Hi Nic
Thanks for your message.
Even if you were to go 157 for the Mercury it will be a good bit more aggressive than the 2016 indoor survival. The Mercury is stiffer, has camber (where the 2016 Indoor Survival was flat to rocker). The Mercury 157 also has a little more effective edge than the 158 Indoor Survival (2016 model) and the 159 has a good bit more.
Also, the Mercury is wider, so there’s more surface area (even on the 157) for better float in powder.
So either way you’ll get something more aggressive and better floating, even in the 157. But the 159 will give even more float in powder,be more aggressive and more stable at speed.
That was an elaborate way to say what you probably already know!
All that said, I think you would like the 157. I would personally go 157 for this board (6’0″, 185lbs, US10 boots). Even though I’d normally go 159 for this type of board, having that little bit of extra width, I like to size down a little. And I think you’ll like that size more for jumps and certainly more for tree runs. If bombing is the most important thing, then the 159 is worth considering, but I would be leaning towards the 157 – and that’s still going to bomb better than your 158 Indoor Survival, IMO.
Hope this helps with your decision
Wow you are fast to respond and this helps a ton. Thanks a lot man!
You’re very welcome Nic. Hope you have an awesome season this winter!
Hi there,
Tossing up between the 57, or the 59. I’m 182cm 77kg and 11us 32 boot. Leaning towards the 57 but the 59 is a bit better for my boot. What would you recommend?
Cheers and great review
Hi Tim
Thanks for your message.
Personally, I would go 157 for this board (183cm, 84kg, size 10 boot). But I would usually go 159 for this type of board – but being a little bit wider than the average board, I like to size down a little with this one. But I could definitely ride the 159 (I rode the 159 for the 2019 model in the spring and really enjoyed it) but I think I would get the 157 for this one (having now ridden the 155 and 159).
For you, being a little lighter, I think the 157 would definitely work for you too – but you also have longer boots – so downsizing for width isn’t really an issue for you.
In terms of fitting on the boards, width-wise, it depends on your binding angles – and the profile of the boots that you have. If you ride with something like +15/-15 or at least with a good bit of an angle on the back foot, then the 157 should be wide enough. But if you ride with a straighter back foot, the 159 might be the safer bet, width-wise. If you have low profile boots (recent Adidas, Vans, Burton and Ride are the lowest profile of the brands that I look at), then you would have more leeway on your binding angles to get on the 157.
I would say, if you can fit width-wise, then I would be leaning towards 157 for you – but you could certainly ride the 159 and if it’s a better fit width-wise, then that might be the best option.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision
Thanks for that, I think I will go the 157, I think 257 width will be ok, my 32 binary boa 2018 are not true most low profile but I think it will do.
Many thanks for your help.
Tim
You’re very welcome Tim. If you think of it at the time, let me know how you get on, once you’ve had a chance to ride it.
Hello, I am 6foot 200lbs and size 11 boots. Mainly for charging around groomers and no park. Would you recommend size 157 or 159. Thank you
Hi Remi
Thanks for your message.
I think the 159 would be your best bet, based on your specs and your preferred style of riding.
For this particular board, I would ride the 157 myself (6’0″, 185lbs size 10) but with that little bit more weight and slightly larger feet, I would go 159 for you. You could also ride the 161. I really enjoyed the 159, but I think for this board, the 157 would be more for me. But I also would want to be taking it into the park, at least occassionally, as well.
So I’d be weighing up 159 or 161 for you – but I think the 159 would work well for you.
Hope this helps
Thank you for your response. Also, I have got Burton Malavitas 2018 model, will this binding will handle this board well?
You’re very welcome Remi.
I actually rode the 2019 Mercury (review to be updated) with 2017 Malavitas (basically the same as 2018 Malavitas) – and I felt like they were a good match. So yeah, I reckon they handle the Mercury fine.
I’m between this one and the gnu riders choice. Any chance you can compare?
Hi Aaron
Thanks for your message.
This is what I would say are the major differences between them:
1. They are two different types of boards, IMO. Though there are no hard lines between types – I would call the Mercury an all-mountain board, and one that’s on the aggressive side. The Rider’s Choice, I would consider all-mountain-freestyle. And probably right in the middle of playful and aggressive but certainly more playful than the Mercury, IMO.
2. The Mercury is a little stiffer – I’d say 6.5/10, with the Rider’s Choice more like 5/10
3. The Mercury has a setback of 12.5mm and a directional shape – whereas the RC is centered with a true twin shape (or asym true twin to be more precise). The RC is overall more setup for riding more freestyle and the Mercury more leaning towards freeride
4. The RC is better in hard/icy snow. The Mercury’s not bad, but the RC a little better
5. Whilst the RC is one of the better True Twin/Centered boards in powder, the Mercury is still a little better in powder
6. The Mercury is better for speed and carving
7. The RC is better for jumps, spins, riding switch, ground tricks and just anything more freestyle oriented. The Mercury isn’t awful in those areas but just not as good
8. The Mercury has camber under and between the feet, with rocker sections towards the contact points on tip and tail whereas the RC has rocker between the feet and then camber that starts under foot and continues to the contact points. Overall this just makes the Mercury feel more of a stable ride and gives the Rider’s Choice a little bit of a looser feel.
Those are the most obvious differences that I can think of. For more on the Rider’s Choice check out:
>>GNU Rider’s Choice Review
Hope this helps
Hi, Nate
Thanks for the great review. Plan to buy the 2019 model as my new gear. I’m 174cm tall, weigh around 77 Kg and with boot size US10. Not sure about if 155 or 157 is much suitable for me. Do you have any suggestion?
Thanks~
Hi Roger
Thanks for your message.
This is a board that I prefer to ride a little shorter than I usually would, just as its a little wider. So for me, I’d usually go with the 159 for this type of board (183cm, 84kg, US10) but I would go 157 for this board. For you, I’d usually say 157 (given a relatively advanced level), but for this board, with your boot size, I think the 155 would be the best fit. You could certainly get on with both sizes, but I’d be leaning towards 155 for you.
Hope this helps with your decision
Hi Nate,
Thanks for your advice~
If compare this one to outerspace living, which one would you recommend to intermediate level. Not often go into park, and want more focus on carving and some ground tricks. If on OSL, can you suggest the size also for 2019 model? Thanks
Hi Roger
I’d say the OSL is more intermediate suitable. You could ride the Mercury as a high-end intermediate rider, but its less suited to intermediate riders than the OSL, IMO. The OSL is a great intermediate level board. I would say however, that the Mercury is a better carver overall, but the OSL isn’t a bad carver either. The OSL will certainly be easier for learning ground tricks, IMO. In terms of size, I think the 156 would be the best fit for you, if you went OSL.
Hope this helps
i am too much intrested with this snowboard and jones mountain twin but which would be better dont know both so similar but which could be more fun posistive and negative parts can u tell with comparing them ?
Hi Sayat
Thanks for your message.
I would say the following are the major differences between the Mercury and the Mountain Twin (MT).
1. The Mercury is just slightly stiffer, though not by much, and slightly more aggressive than the MT
2. The Mercury has a 12.5mm setback and the MT a 20mm setback – so the MT is just a little more setback – but again, this isn’t a huge difference
4. The Mercury is a little better when it comes to carving and jumping but there’s really not much in it
5. The MT is a little better when it comes to powder, but again there’s not much in it, very similar
Otherwise they are very similar, IMO. There are more similarities than differences I would say but those would be the main differences, IMO. Very similar performance-wise. You can read more about my thoughts and ratings on the Mountain Twin at the link below.
>>Jones Mountain Twin Review
Hope this helps
Could you provide some binding suggestions for the board?
Hi Bryan
For the Mercury, I wouldn’t go any softer than a 6/10 flex or any stiffer than 8/10. So something in one of the following lists, would be a good bet, if they fall between that range.
>>Top 5 All-Mountain-Freeride Bindings
>>Top 5 All Mountain Bindings
Hope this gives you some options, if you don’t have any of those available to you, or want some other options let me know, and I can list off a few more that would be suitable.
Thanks! Much appreciated
You’re very welcome Bryan!
Hi Nate,
Really having trouble deciding here.
5’9 – 5″10 / ~160lb
Current Setup: ’06 – ’07 Burton Custom X 158cm (Craigslist buy I chose over the Flying V from the same seller),
Style: I want to say Aggressive All Mountain, I’m typically the fastest amongst my friends on Blues (not usually riding blacks but can handle my own), no problem laying down carves, typically bouncing back and forth edge to edge on faster straights, and love taking jumps on the side hits along the trails. I stay out of the park as its not a big priority for me, but might take one or two runs through it with if friends are going in. Oh and I don’t usually ride switch unless it’s necessary to get me out of a hairy situation dodging people.
Location: Typically multiple runs per season in Vermont / Poconos, will take one trip per year probably to either Mont Tremblant / Denver.
I got to demo a Yes Basic awhile back, didn’t like the chatter it gave at higher speeds. I’m in the market for something new. Really love the stability and that the Burton gives and love bouncing back and forth and feeling the camber load / unload.
Trying to stay away from the NS Prototype 2’s as I’ve seen waay to many of them on the mountain. Leaning heavily towards Capita boards right now – DOA, Mercury, Outerspace, BSOD.
Not sure if I’m trying to replace my Burton with something similar without sacrificing the aggressiveness I’ve grown accustomed to, or complement it with a board that’s more playful.
My thoughts are the DOA would be on the most “playful” end of the spectrum if my Burton is on the other end being ‘Aggressive.” The Mercury sounds like it falls right in the middle there, maybe a 155 or 157?
Look forward to hearing from you, appreciate the time!
Best,
Clint
Hi Clint
Thanks for your message.
Certainly if you’re looking to replace the Custom X, then I would say the Mercury or the BSOD are the way to go over the DOA and Outerspace Living. But the opposite if you’re looking to compliment your quiver – then I would go with the DOA or Outerspace Living for sure.
I would actually say that the Outerspace Living is more playful than the DOA. The DOA is relatively aggressive, from my experience. The Outerspace Living on the other hand is quite easy going and playful. They’re both more freestyle oriented. The Outerspace Living is what I would call an all-mountain-freestyle snowboard and the DOA an aggressive all-mountain-freestyle.
For more options for aggressive all-mountain, if you’re looking to replace:
>>Top 6 Aggressive All Mountain Snowboards
If you’re looking to compliment:
>>My Top All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>Top 5 Aggressive All-Mountain-Freestyle Snowboards
>>My Top 10 Men’s Freestyle Snowboards
But yeah, if you’re going with Capita and want to replace, then Mercury or BSOD would be best from those you’ve listed, but also look at the Capita Supernova, which would be the closest to the Burton Custom X in the Capita line.
If you wanted to go for a full on freestyle/park board as a compliment, then the Capita Ultrafear, Horrorscope or Thunderstick are also options, but it sounds like you still want it a little bit all-mountain oriented, in which case, yeah Outerspace Living or DOA. There’s also the Indoor Survival and Outsiders, but I would take Outerspace living over indoor survival and DOA over outsiders.
In terms of size, I think something around 157, 158 is a good size for you for an all-mountain board. And since that’s the size you’re also used to, then that’s another reason to go for something around that. So, if replacing:
~ Mercury: 157
~ Supernova: 156 or 159 (there are pros and cons for both – I can go more into more detail for sizing for this if it’s something you’re interested in)
~ BSOD: 156 or 159 – but probably 156, because of the width
The Mercury 157 and BSOD (particularly in the 159) will be wider than what you’re used to with the Custom X 2007 (which had quite a narrow waist and quite narrow tip and tail). The Supernova is a narrower board and would be closer in width to the 2007 Custom X.
If going with a compliment like DOA or Outerspace, then I would size down a little bit:
~ DOA: 156 or 154 if you wanted a bigger contrast – you could definitely ride the 154, but it would be a case of how playful you wanted it (the 154 would be more playful). 156 for a more all-round ride.
~ Outerspace Living: 156 or 154 (same as above)
Hope this gives you more to go off
Hi, thanks for the great reviews.
How would you compare this to the yes standard 2018/19?
My riding is mostly off piste/pow, a bit of carving on groomers and then also in the jump line of the park, a little bit of jibbing but not much. Looking for a quiver of one that can fit a 11.5us boot at around 158-160 (I think the 159 mercury would be ok with the width…)
Standard seemed very damp and the construction a bit heavy when I had a small session on it. It railed turns better than any board I’ve ridden though. I was recovering from an injury so didn’t really get to test it fully unfortunately.
Hi Jarod
I think both this and the Standard would do the job for what you’re describing.
In terms of width, I would say that the 159 Mercury would be fine for 11.5s but only if you ride with a reasonable angle on the back foot (e.g. 12-15 degrees). If you ride with a straighter back foot, then I think it would be pushing it for being too narrow. If you have low profile boots (e.g. recent Adidas, Burton, Vans or Ride boots), then you would get away with it with a straighter back foot.
The Standard in the 159, no problems at all with width there, regardless of binding angles for 11.5s, IMO.
The main differences between this and the Standard (and this is based on the 2018, as I haven’t ridden the 2019 yet – the 2019 is supposed to have a lighter core, that’s about all I know about it for now – should be getting my hands on it (and the YES 2019 Catalog) next week).
1. The Standard is wider – not only is it 263mm at the waist vs 259mm at the waist of the 159 Mercury, it’s also 310mm tip and tail vs 303mm on the Mercury. That plus the mid-bite (which makes the waist cinched in) means that the width at the inserts will be a good bit wider on the Standard vs the Mercury
2. The Mercury is a directional twin (has a longer nose than tail) whereas the Standard is a “directional volume twin” which is pretty close to being true twin, but has just a little bit more volume in the nose compared to the tail – but the length and width of the nose is the same as the length and width of the tail.
3. The Mercury is a little stiffer from my experience, but not by heaps. I would say Standard 6/10, Mercury 6.5/10.
They both have a hybrid camber profile (camber between and under the feet with rocker towards tip and tail).
Overall, I would say that the Standard is a little more freestyle oriented and the Mercury a little more freeride oriented, but both are what I would call “all-mountain” and can do a bit of everything. A few differences but performance-wise quite similar, IMO.
In terms of powder, I’d say the Standard in the slam back inserts is a little better but centered not quite as good as the Mercury.
Hope this gives you more to go off for your decision.
Thanks that’s awesome info. I ride 15/-12 with burton boots so the mercury would probably be ok then width wise. The standard was one of my favourite boards I’ve had a go with and I loved it carving. I did find it a bit heavy/too damp for me though and picking up the mercury in the shop, it’s ridiculously light and seems like it would have a bit more livelyness. I have also ridden the capita warpspeed in a 157 before and the construction felt amazing (light and poppy, although a bit catchy edges). The other board I am considering is the DOA in probably a 158w, I’ve got a full blown pow board so that might be a good option as my 2nd board.
I might have to wait for reviews or see if I can find a ’19 standard to have a look at, if it’s supposed to be lighter now that is very interesting… My mate has a yes PYL and it was ridiculously light so they must know how to do it.
Hi Jarod
I got my hands on a 2019 Standard (currently demoing YES & Jones boards) and it’s definitely lighter than the 2018 model. And lively is something that this board is! At least that’s what I found. More so than the 2018 model. I had a blast on this board. In fact the YES boards I’ve ridden so far have really impressed me. I’m also trying to weight boards as much as possible this year as I demo them and the Standard 156 came in at 2880 grams, which is roughly average. Of the 14 boards I’ve weighed so far, the average weight is 18.76 grams per cm (obviously longer boards will weight more, so I work out their weight per cm). The Standard 156 is 18.46g/cm – so a little lighter than the average (small sample size of 14 boards so far). For more perspective, the lightest I’ve weighed is is 17.45g/cm and the heaviest was 20.63g/cm. But I haven’t weighed any Capita boards yet, and I do remember feeling like the Mercury and Outerspace Living in particular felt super light for the 2018 models, so I’m really interested to see what their actual weight is. I rode the PYL 159 yesterday (another sick board!) and that was 2900 grams – 18.24g/cm – so a little lighter than the Standard.
Other boards that I thought felt really light last season (as light as the Mercury and Outerspace Living) were the Assassin 2018 and the Assassin Pro 2018. I haven’t ridden the 2019 versions yet, and haven’t weighed them personally but I do have the weight stats for them from Salomon. The Assassin 158 is supposed to be 2880 grams – 18.23g/cm – similar to the PYL and the Assassin Pro 158 is supposed to be only 2700 grams – which would be 17.09g/cm. I suspect that the Outerspace Living and Mercury would be somewhere in the 17s range.
Anyway, hope that gives you some perspective on the weight of the Standard. But yeah, overall definitely felt lively to ride and lighter to ride than the 2018 model. I don’t have any weight info for the 2018 model, so I’m not sure how much weight it’s dropped, but a reasonable amount I suspect, just from feel.
Also, I’ve been measuring the width at inserts for the boards I’ve been testing (something else that’s not published). The Standard 156 is 270mm wide at the reference points. It has a 258mm waist. This is a bigger difference waist to inserts than anything else I’ve measured and that’s due to the mid-bite. Based on the same ratio, the 159 (with a 263mm waist) would be 275mm at the inserts.
With Burton 11.5s and your angles, I would say you’d want minimum 266mm at the inserts – so the Standard 159 would certainly be fine. I haven’t ridden the 2019 Mercury yet (but hope to get my hands on it sometime in the next couple of weeks) but I’d say it would be at least 266mm at the inserts (but can’t say for sure yet).
That’s probably more info than you needed! But I’m a sucker for this stuff! Hope it gives you more to go off, anyway.
Amazing info!
That’s really interesting stuff, I think weighing the boards is really useful for reviewing. I know personally I have bought a couple without seeing them and they have been pretty heavy when I received them.
Good to hear the standard is a little lights and more lively, I think that might end up near the top of my list then, as everything else about last years model I really liked.
Thanks again for the great info, will be very interested to read some more 2019 reviews!
You’re very welcome Jarod.
I was always interested in the weights too – and whilst I always thought about how heavy they felt, it’s not that accurate to go by feel. I always note how heavy I feel they are before weighing them (in comparison to other boards), and I’m usually right, but not always.
I guess for me it’s going to come down to the mercury 161, standard 159, and jones MT /UMT 161w. I think at 6′ 186lbs 11.5us boot those sizes are right?
Any advice on how to make the call? All of those boards sell out super fast in Aus so it’s hard to go and see them all in person.
Hi Jarod
It’s a tough choice – they’re all good options!
I’d say this:
1. The Mercury is probably the most freeride oriented.
2. The Standard is the most freestyle oriented.
3. The Mountain Twin/Ultra Mountain Twin are in the middle in terms of freestyle/freeride – But all 3 are definitely do-it-all, that’s just where I’d see
4. The Ultra Mountain Twin is quite stiff for the 2019 model, stiffer than in the past, IMO. Jones are rating it 9/10 in terms of flex (which is higher than they rate the Flagship). I’d still say it’s not that stiff, but certainly felt quite stiff – 8/10 probably. The Standard is 6/10 (from my feel, though YES rates it 7/10). The Mountain Twin is 7/10 according to Jones, but again, I’d say closer to 6/10. The Mercury is 7/10 according to Capita, and I think that’s pretty close – but maybe just a touch softer than that – like a 6.5/10.
5. The Standard and Mercury feel livelier/snappier than the Mountain Twin/Ultra Mountain Twin, from the feeling I got from them – and since that was something you mentioned in a previous comment, that could be one factor.
Hopefully that gives you a little more to go off. All great options, IMO, so you can’t really go too wrong there.
Hey Nate,
Looking to replace my 2014 Salomon Time Machine 162. I’d like something similar but with just a little more flex. The Time Machine is 258mm wide, which seems to land right in the middle of the two boards at the top of the list right now, this Mercury 161 or the Yes Typo 161… Which of these two is going to give me the same charging ability in the back-country but a bit more flexy for those groomer days? I’m 5’10” 172lbs, size 9 boot, with a ducked stance about 23″.
Hi Brian
Thanks for your message.
I haven’t ridden the Time Machine but from everything I’ve read about it, it sounds like it has a mid-flex. So I’d say the Mercury will likely feel actually feel stiffer flexing than it. If you’re looking for something with more flex, then the Typo is the way to go. Also, the Typo would be a more suitable width for size 9s.
Personally, I’d prefer the Mercury for the backcountry over the Typo, but since you want something more flexy, then I’d say Typo – and the Typo is something you can ride in the backcountry but it’s certainly not made strictly for the backcountry – but it is a versatile board, so if you’re wanting it as a one-board quiver, then definitely an option. And either the Mercury or the Typo would go out well in that size for you. I would ordinarily put you on more like a 159 for your specs (though there’s certainly personal preference involved for deciding on length too) for an all-mountain board like the Typo or Mercury – so adding those extra couple of centimeters makes either more backcountry-able.
This is assuming by “a little more flex” you mean more flexible and not stiffer? If you’re looking for softer flexing, then the Typo, if you’re looking for something a little stiffer, then the Mercury.
Hope this helps
If I’m looking for a relatively aggressive but still catch free ride (RCR profile mainly) and I’m currently looking at this board along with the Jones Explorer. I want something that can carve really well while having enough float for pow days (while still being able to handle some east coast variable conditions). They both seem to be pretty balanced overall, but I can’t decide which way to go.
Hi Andrew
Thanks for your message.
Yeah that’s a tough one. Both sound like they would suit you well. If you could let me know your specs (height, weight and boot size), we could look at sizing and see if one or the other has a better size for you – that might be the deciding factor.