Hello and welcome to my Capita Mercury review.
In this review, I will take a look at the Mercury as an aggressive 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 aggressive all-mountain snowboards.
Overall Rating
Board: Capita Mercury 2018
Price: $519 (USD recommended retail)
Style: Aggressive All-Mountain
Flex Rating: Medium-Stiff (7/10)
Flex Feel on Snow: Medium-Stiff (6.5/10)
Rating Score: 86.0/100
Compared to other Aggressive All-Mountain’s Boards
Out of the 14 men’s aggressive all-mountain snowboards that I rated:
- The average price was $577 (USD)
- The average score was 82.5/100
- The highest score was 92.7/100
- The lowest score was 75.3/100
- The Mercury ranked 4th out of 14
Overview of the Mercury’s Specs
Check out the tables for the Mercury’s specs and available sizes.
Specs
| Style | Aggressive All-Mountain |
| Price | $519 (USD) |
| Ability Level: |  |
| Flex: |  |
| Feel: |  |
| Edge-hold up to: |  |
| Turn Initiation | Medium-Fast |
| Weight | Lighter than Normal |
| Camber Profile | Hybrid Camber |
| Shape | Directional |
| Stance Setback | Setback 12.5mm (1/2") |
| Base | Sintered (Ultradrive) |
Sizing
| Size (Length) | 153 | 155 | 157 | 159 | 161 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waist Width (mm) | 253 | 255 | 257 | 259 | 261 |
| Weight Range (lbs) | 125-170 | 135-180 | 145-185 | 155-190 | 165-200 |
| Weight Range (kgs) | 57-77 | 61-82 | 66-84 | 70-86 | 75-91 |
Who is the Mercury Most Suited to?
The Mercury is best for a high level intermediate and up rider who 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 predominantly an aggressive ride, but it’s also something you can slow down – it’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 an aggressive style but want to be able to slow down and play around at times, 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 155 (255mm waist)
Date: March 27, 2017
Conditions: 11” (28cm) of fresh snow in the 48 hours prior to demoing it. So, plenty of fresh snow. Groomers a little choppy but not bad. Rain/snow throughout the day. Mostly snow but quite wet snow. Snow was slow overall – but the Mercury was quicker and smoother on it than my test board was.
Bindings angles: +15/-15
Bindings Used: Flux DS
Stance width: 560mm (22“)
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.
I rode the 155 – and though I think the 157 would be the better size for me for this board, I found that it still floated nicely at that size.
Carving & Turning
This board is fun to carve on – it’s got a nice flex for carving and there’s plenty of camber in there and it just gives a nice smooth carve with good spring. I felt like I could get quite low into carves – and it was just a fun board to carve on.
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.
Speed
It felt nice and damp and smooth at speed and felt really stable when getting up to higher speeds. Would have been even more so on the 157 for me.
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-soft by any means, so it doesn’t hug the curves quite like a softer board when the terrain is undulating, but it has got some of flex to it, so with the right technique it was fine in those areas.
Jumps
This is a super fun board for jumps and ollies. It’s got good pop and it’s really solid on landings. It’s great for larger jumps. I prefer something a little softer for smaller jumps, side-hits, 180s that kind of thing but could definitely still rock those, but for big air/straight air, air off rollers, lips etc this thing was gold.
Switch
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.
Probably not something for learning switch on, if you’ve never gotten into it – as it’s not something to learn riding in general if you’re a beginner – but if you’re switch game is down, it does the job when you need it to.
Jibbing
Too stiff and too much camber for me for jibbing – not my kind of board for jibs, but for a really advanced jibber (which I am not!) it’s something that you could hit a few jibs with. For me this was a jump line board, when in the park.
Pipe
I didn’t get it into a pipe, but it’s got pretty good edge hold and it’s fast and aggressive – so I imagine it would go well in there. Usually I’d prefer a twin for the pipe but otherwise I think it would go really well in there.
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.
| FACTOR | RATING (OUT OF 5) | CONTRIBUTION TO FINAL SCORE |
|---|---|---|
| Carving: | 4.0 | 20/25 |
| Speed: | 4.0 | 16/20 |
| Jumps: | 4.0 | 12/15 |
| Powder: | 3.5 | 10.5/15 |
| Uneven Terrain: | 3.5 | 7/10 |
| Pipe: | 4.0 | 8/10 |
| Switch: | 3.0 | 3/5 |
| TOTAL after normalizing | 86.0/100 |
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, but it’s overall personality is aggressive.
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 aggressive all mountain boards or want to check out some other options, check out the next link.
>>My Top 6 Aggressive All-Mountain Snowboards
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.
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
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.
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
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!
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
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’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
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.
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.
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!