Zelex SLE 163?

lesotho2 · Post by **lesotho2** » Wed May 08, 2024 11:31 am

Just saw a post about this doll
https://lovedollsenpai.com/products/zel ... -zxe-201_1

Does anyone know anything about her? Anyone have another link? I think she looks good and might be right for my height, but I need more pictures.

I can't seem to find any other listings.

Corpius · Post by **Corpius** » Wed May 08, 2024 11:54 am

No pictures of the LHP or the labia/butthole area is sus...why don't these manufacturers understand by now that those types of pictures are extremely important in marketing the doll.

chris0113 · Post by **chris0113** » Wed May 08, 2024 12:22 pm

They're a TDF approved vendor. In fact, I just ordered a SLE doll from them a couple days ago. I would send them a message on this forum and ask for more pics, details. I don't see her on the other site I've been looking at either.

frankble · Post by **frankble** » Wed May 08, 2024 12:23 pm

Yea,,show the LHP

ondsdoll · Post by **ondsdoll** » Wed May 08, 2024 12:38 pm

Where are the LHP pictures?

zodraZ · Post by **zodraZ** » Wed May 08, 2024 4:14 pm

MyRobotDoll has this 163 model listed, and I see pics of the love holes there. A shame: I just pulled the trigger on a 172E 201-3… just in time to see them rolling out new SLE dolls in smaller size?

Babel99 · Post by **Babel99** » Wed May 08, 2024 4:23 pm

Yes I was surprised to see that this new model was not announced in this section by Zelex.

4891d · Post by **4891d** » Wed May 08, 2024 4:34 pm

36 kg, that's still quite heavy for a doll with a waist size of 54 cm.
I think that for only 1.5 kg more, the 164 offers more.

It is also the weight of a 170 cm Zelex with a 65 cm waist circumference and much wider shoulders.

LOD · Post by **LOD** » Wed May 08, 2024 4:43 pm

Oh, news to me too.
Personally, I like this more than 164G for LHP (edit: also thicker legs, I guess that's why they're almost the same weight)

ondsdoll · Post by **ondsdoll** » Wed May 08, 2024 6:28 pm

Heavy SLE doll for it's size.

4891d · Post by **4891d** » Thu May 09, 2024 1:22 am

This 163cm has the same leg length as the 171cm, and this confirms an impression I had: the legs seem to me too long in relation to the bust. If this doll measured 158 cm, removing 2 cm from the thighs and 3 cm from the calves, I think the silhouette would gain in naturalness.
For me the most realistic SLE silhouettes are first the 171 cm, then the 164 cm and 172 cm.
Not to mention the 170 cm and 175 cm 'inspiration' silicone models.

Both in silicone and in SLE, Zelex is still missing the small model (155 -158 cm) with a slender Asian silhouette which would make a nice addition to the range and which would allow it to go down to 30 kg or below.

bbc3 · Post by **bbc3** » Thu May 09, 2024 2:50 am

I'm guessing its a cost saving move to re-use the lower half of the skeleton across the different models of SLE. I will say that Zelex is at least getting closer to the height/weight I'd be really interested in for SLE. Shorter and smaller bust with lower weight would be great for me.

ondsdoll · Post by **ondsdoll** » Thu May 09, 2024 2:16 pm

Why those short arms, long legs, unrealistic bellybutton thats is high on the body?

Post by **Booty Call Dolls** » Sat May 11, 2024 4:18 pm

Here are a couple videos

Bree · Post by **Bree** » Fri May 17, 2024 2:24 pm

Appears the 163E, shares the bottom half of the skeleton with 171/172. The top section of, not sure. Shortest arm length for SLE yet. I actually think it looks pretty good. Maybe along with LOD a little better than 164G.
So I started to compare my previous favorite, the 164G with the 163E.

I have not seen an official announcement from Zelex on this 163. Can Zelex or someone else link a size chart in metric?
I personally like the longer legs on this 163. But are all of the measurements correct?

What does not make sense as I compare, is when I put a rough screenshot side by side to try and compare 163 with 164, something is wrong with the numbers.

Zelex lists the 163E leg length in inches or 84.6cm (33.3in) and the 164 is listed as 82.5cm (32.48in), which is slightly over 2cm (under 1 inch) difference.
Comparing the two dolls without heads, body height listed for the new 163E is 4'9" or 144.8cm (57in) and the 164 is 146cm (57.48in), a 1.2cm (½ inch) difference.

But side by side, even undersizing the 163 a litttle, draw a line across and the 163 leg length appears several inches longer. What am I seeing or calculating that is incorrect?
Perhaps the photo of the top half of the 163E is an extreme bend hidden from camera angle? But could it cause this much visual deviation?

: 164_vs_163.jpg (153.75 KiB) Viewed 376 times

Then I try to visually match leg length since the factory images appear to have one leg down straight enough and if that is forced to match, the height and proportions looks way different.

: 164_vs_163force.jpg (154.72 KiB) Viewed 376 times

There must be a measurement off somewhere. Maybe if someone has an accurate re-measurement of leg length (bottom of heel to crotch, not measuring 5mm hanging labia) for the 164G?