Why Glice commissioned the testing
Glice did not order this test to produce a marketing line. It commissioned it as a baseline for its own research and development: to know, precisely and independently, how the surface performed against the rest of the market and where it could be improved. The results were strong enough to publish, but the purpose was engineering, not advertising.
Who did the measuring
The work was done by Fraunhofer IWM, the Institute for Mechanics of Materials, one of the institutes of the Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, which is Europe's largest organization for applied research. It was led by Prof. Dr. Matthias Scherge, who heads the institute's work on tribology, the science of friction and wear. Glice commissioned the study but did not run it. The measurement is Fraunhofer's.
How they tested it
Standard laboratory equipment is not built to measure ice gliding, so Fraunhofer built a bespoke ice gliding simulator for the project. They selected the top five synthetic ice surfaces, bought the newest version of each directly, and measured all five on the same rig under identical conditions, in September 2025. Three properties were measured: surface friction, indentation, and abrasion.
What they found
On all three properties, Glice measured best of the five surfaces tested. Against the next-best surface, Glice recorded 52% less friction, 45% less indentation and 6% less abrasion. Those figures were measured at low sliding speed, under laboratory conditions, on clean, prepared samples, and they are relative to the next-best surface on the same equipment.
How to read the numbers
A friction figure only means something with its conditions and a reference, and this study has both: identical conditions, and a direct comparison against the next-best surface on the same rig. That is what makes the percentages meaningful, and it is exactly what most competitor claims lack. The numbers describe these specific surfaces under these specific conditions, not a universal property.
Glice and real ice
Fraunhofer also compared Glice against frozen ice. At low sliding speed, in the laboratory, Glice's friction came out slightly lower than frozen ice. This holds under those two conditions, low speed and clean laboratory samples, and not beyond them. At the speeds a hockey player actually reaches, around 8 m/s, refrigerated ice is expected to have the lower friction. That is an expectation from the physics, not a measurement, because a reciprocating laboratory rig cannot recreate a blade meeting fresh cold surface at speed.
The limits of the test
Three limits travel with the results. The high-speed case cannot be simulated on the rig, so the low-speed findings should not be stretched to game speed. Blade wear was not part of the study. And abrasion was measured to the DIN ISO 4649 standard, which is one defined method, not every possible one. The findings are precise about what they cover.
In short
Fraunhofer IWM, Europe's largest organization for applied research, measured the five leading synthetic ice surfaces on one rig under identical conditions. Glice measured best on all three properties, with 52% less friction, 45% less indentation and 6% less abrasion than the next-best surface, at low sliding speed on clean laboratory samples. It is the only independent, published comparison of synthetic ice surfaces in the category. Glice engineered the material; Fraunhofer measured it.
