Roxa R3 130 T.I. Boot

Liner

The R3 130 uses a heat-moldable Intuition Power Tongue Liner with a heel cutout to facilitate flex in walk mode. This is a common liner in touring boots, and I’ve had good experiences with them in the past. I heat molded the liner and it’s done a very good job keeping my foot secure in the boot and I haven’t developed any blisters.

It’s similar in thickness to the liners used in the MTN Explore or Spectre 2.0, but it’s much less burly than the liners found in the K2 Pinnacle 130 or Nordica Strider.

Touring

While the R3 130 has plenty of rear ROM (I haven’t found the rearward limit while touring) it is definitely limited in its forward ROM by two things: the tongue, and the upper clog of the boot. The walk mode lever doesn’t unlock any forward ROM, so if you keep the boot buckled, you don’t get any additional forward movement.

If you do loosen the buckles, the liner can move within the shell, and the front of the liner flexes out of the shell well so I found that I had adequate ROM. I really only noticed the limit on very flat or very steep skin tracks, where I found myself banging into the front and back of the shell. The Salomon MTN Explore and La Sportiva Spectre 2.0 both have a greater ROM and walk better than the R3, but it’s not a big enough difference to really frustrate me, especially since the R3 130 happens to fit my feet so much better than either of those boots.

Downhill Performance

I might as well state right away that I wouldn’t say that the R3 130 is a true 130-flex boot. Compared to boots like the K2 Pinnacle 130 and Nordica Strider, both heavier, 130 flex boots, it’s significantly softer. It also feels like it has a more linear flex pattern than those more progressive boots; the R3 130 bends deeper into its flex before it ramps up.

I skied one firm day inbounds in the R3 130 and did not enjoy myself. The boot was adequate, and it skied better than the MTN Explore or Spectre 2.0 inbounds, but it did not have the suspension and support of an alpine boot. It’s stiff enough that I could ski it as a 50 / 50 boot, but I would much prefer something stiffer and with more suspension if I was planning on regularly skiing a lot of firm snow inbounds.

That said, the R3’s flex pattern felt right at home in softer snow. Its cuff is a little higher than the Salomon MTN Explore or La Sportiva Spectre 2.0, and it has better lateral support than the Spectre 2.0, which is something that I noticed immediately.

So while I don’t think the R3 130 truly belongs in the “130 flex” category, I would classify it as a strong 115-ish flex, and I find it to be more than enough boot for most of my backcountry excursions. The only time I’d want something more is on short tours where I’m looking for trouble — hitting a booter or sessioning a line with big airs.

Potential Modifications

The R3 130’s tongue mechanism is the same as Full Tilt’s, so initially, I thought I’d just swap in a Full Tilt tongue to make the R3 130 stiffer. (The R3 130 feels a little softer than my “8” flex Full Tilts.) However, I was surprised to find that the R3 130’s stock tongue is stiffer than an 8 flex Full Tilt. A 10 flex tongue may make some difference, but I doubt it would be much.

The weakest point of the R3 130 seems to be the top strap / buckle, and I’m tempted to add a Booster strap on top of it. This would add another step while transitioning from tour mode to ski mode, but it should also make the R3 a little stiffer and allow me to cinch down the cuff a little more.

I also intend to experiment with an Intuition Power Wrap liner in the R3.

Who’s It For?

The Roxa R3 130’s combined qualities makes this question a little more difficult than usual. The swappable soles make it an attractive option for those looking for a one-boot-quiver who don’t mind a softer-flexing boot.

The more you value light weight and ROM, the more I’d point you toward the Salomon MTN Explore or La Sportiva Spectre 2.0. Both of those boots walk noticeably better than the R3 130, and for a lot of skiers, that better uphill experience will outweigh the R3 130’s slight downhill edge. But after we’ve published this review, I’m still planning on reaching for the R3 130 over either of those boots for the majority of my tours, since it fits my foot so dang well. Which brings us back to one of the oft-repeated and oft-ignored maxims of ski boots: fit trumps all else.

I can tour longer and faster in the Roxa R3 130 not because it walks particularly well or is exceptionally light, but because my foot has yet to really hurt in it. That’s a huge deal to me. I’ve stopped mid-tour to take off both the MTN Explore and Spectre 2.0 to rest my feet. I’ve never been tempted to do that with the R3 130, and I haven’t made any modifications to the boot.

Bottom Line

Roxa’s new R3 130 T.I. may have flown a bit under the radar at the trade shows, but it has proven to be a capable boot. It’s neither the lightest nor the stiffest boot, and it doesn’t have the largest ROM. But it occupies a versatile middle ground, and its swappable soles only add to that. I’ve been very pleased with the R3 130’s fit and will continue to reach for it for most tours this spring because of that.