EXE / G-project JU-C5: four channel sections and pronounced suction after air removal

Images were selected by position and quality; individual human review is pending.

This text passed automated basic checks only; it has not undergone model or human review.

The original headline and overall experience score were 4 stars. For suction alone, the author would have given 5, but felt the softer interior weakened the texture design. This is a personal account, not standardized suction or material testing.

The sample included lubricant, the body and a ventilated plastic storage bag; accessories may vary by batch. The bag helped keep surface oil off other objects, but care powder could escape through its holes. The source's additional bagging practice was not validated for long-term storage. The box was described as PVC plastic. The body had a prominent exterior ring that the reviewer disliked visually.

There were 4 internal sections: 4 rings at the entrance, small granular bumps, a spiral narrowing in the middle, and a larger end cavity with larger bumps. The two layers felt different, with a firmer rubber-like exterior and softer interior. Feel does not establish chemical composition.

In use, the bumps in the second and fourth sections were difficult to distinguish. The spiral section mainly felt narrower, without much identifiable spiral texture. The entrance rings stood out more, particularly during outward movement.

Suction became strong after air was expelled. The reviewer felt it peak when moving outward into the front half, then fade as air entered. They attributed it to the large cavity and found it comparable to their own experience of R20一代. This is a subjective comparison, not a pressure measurement.

With expelled air and thinner lubricant, the author felt intensity rise from about 2 stars in ordinary use to 3.5–4. No formulation-compatibility testing was supplied, and the change is not guaranteed for everyone. The middle narrowing felt tighter, while overall tightness seemed moderate to the author; other users called it loose.

The source considered both inside-out washing and direct entrance cleaning feasible. The firmer exterior and low oil release were treated as durability advantages, without long-term testing. An inside-out demonstration does not prove unlimited resistance to folding. No body weight or channel length was provided.

Ratings: overall experience 4 stars, personal suction assessment 5; durability 5; cleaning 5; intensity 4 in the graphic, about 2 in ordinary use and 3.5–4 after air removal with thinner lubricant; tightness 3; softness 3 in the graphic, 2 or 3 in the text, with a firmer exterior and softer interior. Strengths were suction, clear entrance rings and convenient cleaning. Limitations were subdued granular and spiral feedback and differing tightness experiences.