ted

Putting on skis
Skier
Joined
Jan 23, 2016
Posts
223
Is this the 2019/2020 model,? According to blister, it has a flex mod compared to older models. There are some funny place videos on the boot, one in particular where he talks about how stagnant ski boot design is., basically\y the 4 buckle hasn't changed since the early 80s.


 
Thread Starter
TS
Doug Briggs

Doug Briggs

Skiing the powder
Industry Insider
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
4,634
Location
Breckenridge, CO
Is this the 2019/2020 model,? According to blister, it has a flex mod compared to older models. There are some funny place videos on the boot, one in particular where he talks about how stagnant ski boot design is., basically\y the 4 buckle hasn't changed since the early 80s.


That appears to be the boot. I don't know why it is labeled the RX3 in the videos. The model I have is the R3 and I only see R3 on the boot in Glenn's hands.
 
Last edited:

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
9,069
I ask because the Roxa Element (non-touring 3 piece) is actually 8-10mm longer than any of my 2 piece boots. Your posts here confirm my impression that Roxa sizing is ...unpredictable without fitting.

The BSL of the R3 is 300. My Hawx are 303. My RC4s are 307. All are 26/26.5 shell sizes.

I have not done a shell fit of the R3. I'll do that soon and report back. The other two pairs were fit by the bootfitters at the shop. The R3s were provided sight unseen, untried on and because I was a '26.5'.
 

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
1,583
Location
í mínum huga er ég í vestri
I ski in the women’s Roxa R3 105 T.I. My impressions are similar to those posted above. I love this boot...extremely comfortable and allows for precise and powerful skiing. My BSL has been shorted by 5mm despite having more toe room, something I was looking for. I have a very narrow heel and the instep buckle helps with heel hold. I normally need a punch on the inside of the boot near my big toe, but not with these boots.

Despite the last being 99, I’d say it’s a narrow 99 last. I also am skiing mine in the “soft” setting, have a DIN sole on mine because one pair of skis has non-GripWalk compatible bindings. Mine are a 25.5, as were my last 3 pairs of boots. Despite the shorter BSL, they are longer inside, probably due to the thinner plastic. My bootfitter has a pair and ended up sizing down. I spoke with the Roxa rep, and he told me that the fit was designed to give more toe room.

4B1E6B2A-CF85-4DD2-B84A-037414CAACF2.jpeg
 

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
1,583
Location
í mínum huga er ég í vestri
I ask because the Roxa Element (non-touring 3 piece) is actually 8-10mm longer than any of my 2 piece boots. Your posts here confirm my impression that Roxa sizing is ...unpredictable without fitting.
You mean “longer” as in BSL? If so, probably because they are not Grilamid plastic. I found the sizing comparable to my old Lange RS120’s, and a bit longer inside than my Tecnica Mach1’s. My ski shop owner-bootfitter-boss ended up sizing down in his, but he likes a very close, black-toenail-inducing fit. I don’t. I found my 25.5 normal size to be perfect out of the box. The rep recommended NOT sizing down. I actually may remold my left liner with a toe cap to give me more wiggle room (I didn’t use toe caps in heat molding). The slight extra length allows my toes to lie flat and it feels as if it has improved my balance, as well as made my toes warmer!

I do wear Injinji ski socks (they have toes)....they keep my toes spread apart and prevent sweating. They are a tad heavier weight than the lightweight socks I used to wear with my Tecnicas, but my feet are very narrow at the heel, so they work.

I skied in crud, deep corn, and slush at Alta this weekend, with an instructor who was pushing me out of my comfort zone, and the Roxas were great and were comfy all day long. I love the 3 piece shell for its ease of entry and exit. When I had my Tecnicas, I had to heat them up first in order to get my feet in! Getting those off was painful and murdurous.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Doug Briggs

Doug Briggs

Skiing the powder
Industry Insider
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
4,634
Location
Breckenridge, CO
You mean “longer” as in BSL? If so, probably because they are not Grilamid plastic. I found the sizing comparable to my old Lange RS120’s, and a bit longer inside than my Tecnica Mach1’s. My ski shop owner-bootfitter-boss ended up sizing down in his, but he likes a very close, black-toenail-inducing fit. I don’t. I found my 25.5 normal size to be perfect out of the box. The rep recommended NOT sizing down. I actually may remold my left liner with a toe cap to give me more wiggle room (I didn’t use toe caps in heat molding). The slight extra length allows my toes to lie flat and it feels as if it has improved my balance, as well as made my toes warmer!

I do wear Injinji ski socks (they have toes)....they keep my toes spread apart and prevent sweating. They are a tad heavier weight than the lightweight socks I used to wear with my Tecnicas, but my feet are very narrow at the heel, so they work.

I skied in crud, deep corn, and slush at Alta this weekend, with an instructor who was pushing me out of my comfort zone, and the Roxas were great and were comfy all day long. I love the 3 piece shell for its ease of entry and exit. When I had my Tecnicas, I had to heat them up first in order to get my feet in! Getting those off was painful and murdurous.
I'll concur that the Grilamid built boots are much thinner thus need less exterior length for the same (or in my case) greater interior length. The R3 definitely needs to be tried on for fit. The 26 I tested could easily have fit someone that usually wears a 27.

The transfer has taken place. Look for @Ken_R 's feedback soon.
 

VickieH

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
967
Location
Denver area
Sounds as if sizing down may be commonplace with Roxa boots. Unfortunately, the smallest women's size is 22. Women who are currently in anything smaller than 23 may be out of luck. Again.
 

neonorchid

Out on the slopes
Skier
Joined
Nov 21, 2015
Posts
3,701
I'll concur that the Grilamid built boots are much thinner thus need less exterior length for the same (or in my case) greater interior length. The R3 definitely needs to be tried on for fit. The 26 I tested could easily have fit someone that usually wears a 27.

The transfer has taken place. Look for @Ken_R 's feedback soon.
Yet your Atomic Hawx 130 are Grilamid, no sizing issue there ... sounds like Roxa fudged their sizing? I read that Grilamid shrinks more then PU, therefore, the Grilamid version of a boot out of the same mold will fit slightly smaller then the PU version.
BTW, Thx for the heads up on Roxa sizing.
 

CalG

Out on the slopes
Pass Pulled
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Posts
1,965
Location
Vt
I would be interested in any comparisons of the Roxa with the Dalbello Lupo.
The Lupo is also a 99 last, which is way tight for my fore foot. The Ankle fit on the other hand is PERFECT.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
3,909
Location
Denver, CO
I'll concur that the Grilamid built boots are much thinner thus need less exterior length for the same (or in my case) greater interior length. The R3 definitely needs to be tried on for fit. The 26 I tested could easily have fit someone that usually wears a 27.

The transfer has taken place. Look for @Ken_R 's feedback soon.
I took the boots home and tried them on and adjusted the buckles several times to get the best fit. I agree 100% with Doug. Even with my custom insoles, which are a bit thicker than the stock ones, there is a bit more room inside the boot compared to say my Dynafit Hojis in the same 26.5 size. At the widest point the Roxas are not that much wider than the Hojis if anything but the Roxas have a bit more room around the ankle and on the top of the foot.

The liner on the Roxa felt super comfortable and is pretty firm in the cuff area. Combined with the shells the flex was nice and supportive and bounced back nicely. The Hojis are a tiny bit stiffer but the Roxas are more progressive and not so on and off. The Hawx XTD feel the best in regards to flex. Not because they are stiffer, they are not, but the feel is just smoother.

In walk mode the Roxas did not offer as much range of motion as in the Atomic Hawx XTD and the Dynafit Hojis (which are awesome in that regard) but the top strap and buckle are super easy to use and it has a nice cam mechanism that works great. In the Hawx XTD one needs to unbuckle the top two buckles and loosen the strap. The Hojis have an awesome and unique mechanism which is better than both. Overall I would rate the Hoji best in walk mode, then the XTD and then the Roxas.

I just weighted the Roxas and they weighted 1566g and 1564g (both shells weighted 1330g Exactly! the liners weighted 236g and 234g.)

I weighted the Hojis for comparison and they weighted 1336g and 1348g (1156g and 1168g for the shells and 180g for each liner)

(Note that I removed the footbeds in both boots before weighting)

I want to get the Roxa Boots on snow on one of my pairs of skis with alpine bindings (something I cant do with the Hojis due to their touring specific design) to really evaluate their performance. I would say they lean more towards lift served use but are super easy to get in and out of compared to most 4 buckle boots and of course they have dynafit fittings so they are compatible with pin touring bindings.

_5D44175.JPG


_5D44181.JPG


_5D44184.JPG


_5D44188.JPG


_5D44187.JPG
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
3,909
Location
Denver, CO
Forgot to post this image showing the upper buckle in the open position.

_5D44189.JPG


Overall I find the Roxa to have a really nice clean design.
 

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
1,583
Location
í mínum huga er ég í vestri
Sounds as if sizing down may be commonplace with Roxa boots. Unfortunately, the smallest women's size is 22. Women who are currently in anything smaller than 23 may be out of luck. Again.
Again, as I stated above, I am in a 25.5 Roxa, and it fits very similarly to the 25.5 Lange RS120 I used to have. It is longer than the Tecnica Mach 1 105, but that boot was a tad too short for me.

I’ve been skiing in mine all season.

My ski shop owner, who sized down in his Roxas, now has lost 2 toenails.

So, the message I am trying to convey is....don’t just assume that everyone needs to size down in these boots.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
3,909
Location
Denver, CO
Again, as I stated above, I am in a 25.5 Roxa, and it fits very similarly to the 25.5 Lange RS120 I used to have. It is longer than the Tecnica Mach 1 105, but that boot was a tad too short for me.

I’ve been skiing in mine all season.

My ski shop owner, who sized down in his Roxas, now has lost 2 toenails.

So, the message I am trying to convey is....don’t just assume that everyone needs to size down in these boots.
Yeah. The thing is the toe box height and width in the Roxas is not that far off from being true to the size but the rest of it is a tad larger than the size would suggest. They are best for somewhat meaty feet. Mine are low and thin so the fit was not best for me. I could size down and mod the shell easily to fit well.
 

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
1,583
Location
í mínum huga er ég í vestri
Yeah. The thing is the toe box height and width in the Roxas is not that far off from being true to the size but the rest of it is a tad larger than the size would suggest. They are best for somewhat meaty feet. Mine are low and thin so the fit was not best for me. I could size down and mod the shell easily to fit well.
Did you cook the liner? That tightened up the fit for me.

My feet are bony, but wide across the toes. I guess I found that I am more comfy in the Roxas and my feet are no longer angry with me. ogwink After skiing some funky off piste snow at Alta the other week, I didn’t feel hindered by having slightly more toe room...I was able to ski longer, in fact.
 

Philpug

Notorious P.U.G.
Admin
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Posts
24,489
Location
Reno, eNVy
We have these and will be bringing them back to Tahoe if someone wants to do a Spring review on them.
 

Ken_R

Living the Dream
Skier
Joined
Feb 10, 2016
Posts
3,909
Location
Denver, CO
Did you cook the liner? That tightened up the fit for me.

My feet are bony, but wide across the toes. I guess I found that I am more comfy in the Roxas and my feet are no longer angry with me. ogwink After skiing some funky off piste snow at Alta the other week, I didn’t feel hindered by having slightly more toe room...I was able to ski longer, in fact.
Hi, I did not since I did not want to modify the boot since other were going to test it as well. Generally cooking a liner or shell makes the space inside it larger not smaller. I like tight fitting boots but not "Plug Boot Custom Fit, I cry when I get out of my boots" tight like some skiers in this forum. You know who you are. :roflmao:
 

Andy Mink

I am a half fast skier.
Moderator
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,636
Location
Reno
We have these and will be bringing them back to Tahoe if someone wants to do a Spring review on them.
I was the winner in this manner. I got to try them out last week on a very soft spring day at Squaw.

look into the R3. It is NOT soft
No, it is not. See below.

300 mm BSL 26.5 would not be too long for me, but I was mistaken
I usually ski in a 27.5. These were perfect length in a 26.5.

The 26 I tested could easily have fit someone that usually wears a 27.
True. See above.

Some initial thoughts on this boot:
--It is light. VERY light compared to my 27.5 Raptors.
--I REALLY like the grip walk soles for getting around. Amazing how much easier it is to walk around.
--The walk-mode and releasable top buckle also help in walking around.
--The boot is stiff.

As I noted, the length on these 26.5 boots was just about perfect. My big toe just barely, and I mean barely, touched the front of the liner. Very nice. The overall feel of the Intuition liner is that it is snug, like a firm handshake. The only thing I would probably do is a small punch on my right 6th toe. I did not cook the liners so that might help too. I also used the stock footbeds. I did miss the support of my good footbeds. My feet were getting a bit tired.

On the snow, the very soft, sticky spring snow, the boots performed well. I didn't use them to climb (I bought a lift ticket, right?!) so I can't speak to that aspect of the boot, but the downhill ride was good. We skied some fairly big bumps, open groomers, and some steep soft stuff off Reverse Traverse. I felt they had a very on-off flex. It felt like you hit a wall and then just pressed your shins against that wall to get more pressure on the front of the skis. At 130 they felt stiffer than my Raptor 140s set at 150 but that could be because the Raptors are very progressive in their flex. Also, the Raptors, like other PU boots, tend to soften up significantly in the warmer weather. Conversely, the Raptors get VERY stiff in the cold. I don't believe the Grilamid will be as affected by temperature. I skied these in the "stiff" mode; I plan on changing that to the "soft" mode next time I get out.

Between the Roxa boot and the very light Renoun Citadels, feeling the snow was no problem. It definitely felt different than the Raptors, the Raptors feeling more damp, the Roxas more lively. One thing I did prefer in the Roxas was the more upright cuff. I believe the Raptors are at 18° and the Roxas are at 15°.

I could definitely see myself spending a lot more time in the boots but if I were to move permanently to a Roxa boot I would grab the R3S 130 which has no tech inserts or walk mode. It also eschews the 2 lightweight cable buckles and top strap for a more traditional 4 buckle system. I prefer some canting on my boots and the tech fittings make canting nearly impossible.
 

Andy Mink

I am a half fast skier.
Moderator
Pugski Ski Tester
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,636
Location
Reno
Update: I blew the dust off the Roxas (just kidding, no dust) for a trip to Mt. Rose this morning. The fit was as I remembered, see above. I've been skiing my Raptors so far this year and the last trip up I just didn't feel "right". I wasn't sure if it was the skis, the boots, or me. Conditions were quite good so I'm sure it wasn't that. Usually, I'm pretty convinced I'm the weakest link but the day did get better.

Fast forward to today. Still great conditions, but different skis (Liberty Evolv 90s vs K2 Mindbender 90s) and different boots (Roxa vs Raptor). I felt much better today and I think the main reason is the more upright stance in the Roxas. As noted above, I noticed this last spring but wanted to be sure I really liked the more upright stance. Whether it is the few degrees less of forward lean or just how the boot interacts with my shin, I felt significantly less thigh burn and more direct control. I felt very connected to the skis.

I usually feel great on lower angle groomers with the Raptors but once it gets steeper I am not as comfortable/confident in getting far enough forward to keep pressure on the tongues. On the same runs with the Roxas I didn't feel that concern. No matter what boot I get next I'll likely go with a more upright stance than the Raptor. This is no knock against the Raptor, as it is a high performance machine. I just may not be as high a performance skier as is needed to drive the boot. Sometimes you have to face facts.:rolleyes:

I'm guessing the temp when we were on the hill was in the upper 30s or low 40s. The Roxas felt like they flexed the same just out of the heated bag as they did on the hill. Again, that's the Grilamid vs PU shell. The Grilamid seems to be more stable across temperatures. I did switch the flex from stiff to soft and the boots became more progressive as opposed to on/off. As a side note on temperature, the Roxas don't seem to be significantly warmer or colder than the Raptors.

The bottom line, as of 2:11pm on 12/6/2019, is I'm going to put my footbeds with the Thermic heaters in the Roxa boots and get some more laps. This could change, of course, but that's the plan for now.

Continued pros for Roxa: light weight, consistent flex, grip walk soles, walk mode

Possible cons: inability to do much, if any, canting work due to pin inserts and hollow soles; the buckles take a little getting used to but I'm sure they function great in the back country.
 
Last edited:

Wendy

Trying not to face plant
Skier
Joined
Mar 13, 2016
Posts
1,583
Location
í mínum huga er ég í vestri
Update: I blew the dust off the Roxas (just kidding, no dust) for a trip to Mt. Rose this morning. The fit was as I remembered, see above. I've been skiing my Raptors so far this year and the last trip up I just didn't feel "right". I wasn't sure if it was the skis, the boots, or me. Conditions were quite good so I'm sure it wasn't that. Usually, I'm pretty convinced I'm the weakest link but the day did get better.

Fast forward to today. Still great conditions, but different skis (Liberty Evolv 90s vs K2 Mindbender 90s) and different boots (Roxa vs Raptor). I felt much better today and I think the main reason is the more upright stance in the Roxas. As noted above, I noticed this last spring but wanted to be sure I really liked the more upright stance. Whether it is the few degrees less of forward lean or just how the boot interacts with my shin, I felt significantly less thigh burn and more direct control. I felt very connected to the skis.

I usually feel great on lower angle groomers with the Raptors but once it gets steeper I am not as comfortable/confident in getting far enough forward to keep pressure on the tongues. On the same runs with the Roxas I didn't feel that concern. No matter what boot I get next I'll likely go with a more upright stance than the Raptor. This is no knock against the Raptor, as it is a high performance machine. I just may not be as high a performance skier as is needed to drive the boot. Sometimes you have to face facts.:rolleyes:

I'm guessing the temp when we were on the hill was in the upper 30s or low 40s. The Roxas felt like they flexed the same just out of the heated bag as they did on the hill. Again, that's the Grilamid vs PU shell. The Grilamid seems to be more stable across temperatures. I did switch the flex from stiff to soft and the boots became more progressive as opposed to on/off. As a side note on temperature, the Roxas don't seem to be significantly warmer or colder than the Raptors.

The bottom line, as of 2:11pm on 12/6/2019, is I'm going to put my footbeds with the Thermic heaters in the Roxa boots and get some more laps. This could change, of course, but that's the plan for now.

Continued pros for Roxa: light weight, consistent flex, grip walk soles, walk mode

Possible cons: inability to do much, if any, canting work due to pin inserts and hollow soles; the buckles take a little getting used to but I'm sure they function great in the back country.
Nice update. My Roxa R3’s me through last season with happy feet and good skiing. Unfortunately when I skied in them this season, I had heel slippage that I couldn’t resolve comfortably. The last is a bit wider than I normally wear, and I knew this going into this boot, and it felt narrower than its listed 99. But I had to face facts and get into a narrower fitting boot this season. I think a friend is going to try my 25.5’s.

Another downside to the boot for me is the lack of adjustability in cuff alignment. I had to put lateral shims in my cuffs.

Still they are great, lightweight cabrio boots with a narrower instep than Dalbello.
 
Top