Can Anyone Elaborate on Irontech Weight Reduction Status?

[serotta]

Irontech has been rolling out weight reduction in their silicone dolls.

Two TDF members recently purchased dolls that ended up being much lighter than they expected. One was a 163B and the other was a 167. Irontech's website lists these dolls at 30 kg + head. However, every vendor site I checked lists them at 36-37 kg. I also found this situation on two other dolls - the 159 and 165. It appears that, at a bare minimum, these four dolls have been weight reduced. The 169 was introduced with a reduced weight, so that would be a fifth.

The status of the other silicone dolls is unclear. The old weight is still displayed at Irontech's site and at every vendor site, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these dolls haven't been weight reduced. It would be great to get an official summary of the weight reduction status on the remaining silicone dolls, particularly the 164 and 168.

[bbc3]

There's a vendor thread with a photo of all the silicone body types and their reduced weights. It's about 4-5kg less than the "regular" weights across the board. I don't think it was ever clarified how extra softness features might affect this however.

[foofighter12]

Can you post a link to those threads? this is new to me; i thought the weight reduction wasn't coming out for a long while. Yes, I would also like to know what the softness is like.

[SimonSays7]

Let the weight-reduction Olympics continue.

First company that achieves a good soft doll 160cm or taller (with a normal or curvy figure) that weighs under 28kg and costs less than $2.5k, wins GOLD!

[Davey2469]

Irontech has been rolling out weight reduction in their silicone dolls.

Two TDF members recently purchased dolls that ended up being much lighter than they expected. One was a 163B and the other was a 167. Irontech's website lists these dolls at 30 kg + head. However, every vendor site I checked lists them at 36-37 kg. I also found this situation on two other dolls - the 159 and 165. It appears that, at a bare minimum, these four dolls have been weight reduced. The 169 was introduced with a reduced weight, so that would be a fifth.

The status of the other silicone dolls is unclear. The old weight is still displayed at Irontech's site and at every vendor site, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these dolls haven't been weight reduced. It would be great to get an official summary of the weight reduction status on the remaining silicone dolls, particularly the 164 and 168.

Im still not sure if mine has WR. When purchased the weight said more then the site does now so I think they did change it. Search options on Irontech for a diagram with weights. I believe my next does have WR but we shall see.

[serotta]

Let the weight-reduction Olympics continue.

First company that achieves a good soft doll 160cm or taller (with a normal or curvy figure) that weighs under 28kg and costs less than $2.5k, wins GOLD!

Yes! I've been suggesting the idea of a design sweet spot for about a year. Glad someone else gets it.

The 163B nearly got there but it's a little too heavy in the waist and hips. My best guess at the winning formula is 162C or 163B, under bust 68, waist 60, hips 89.

[serotta]

I found this, which kind of implies the weight reduction was done all at once in December 2023:

https://www.irontechdoll.com/roadmap/

[irontechdoll]

Greater softness could potentially compromise durability and longevity. While this aspect hasn't been dismissed outright, further diligent investigation is required.

[serotta]

Greater softness could potentially compromise durability and longevity. While this aspect hasn't been dismissed outright, further diligent investigation is required.

Thank you for the quick response, Irontech. Some additional clarification would be helpful. As far as I know, the 168 has always been 36 kg + head. Likewise, the 164 at 40 kg + head appears to be a non-reduced weight.

Should buyers expect these dolls to be reduced in the near future, or has the weight reduction work been concluded for now? Thanks.

[claydough]

Greater softness could potentially compromise durability and longevity. While this aspect hasn't been dismissed outright, further diligent investigation is required.

So you know, i would still want the softer option even if it was more delicate

[ArcanePath]

Be careful with weight reduction. It was important to me until I researched it. It takes away a lot of silicone, which means that when you are posing and playing, there is less silicone for strength around joints, meaning they tear more easily. Not only this, they don't hold their shape in different poses as well, as they have pockets of air and foam inside which compress easily, where the mass of silicone behaves more like flesh.