Where regular synthetic ice falls short
Synthetic ice has a reputation for being slow, sticky and hard work, and for most of what is on the market that reputation is earned. Regular synthetic ice is too soft, so the blade sinks in and the skater ploughs the material aside rather than gliding over it, like an icebreaker forcing through pack ice, which is tiring. It also dulls blades fast: on regular synthetic ice, most blades go dull within ten to fifteen minutes, inside a single session. On any surface, the edge lasts only while skates stay on the ice or rubber matting; hard flooring or asphalt ruins it fast. If your only experience of synthetic ice is a surface like that, the scepticism is fair. Top synthetic ice behaves differently on both counts, and on a well-maintained top surface sharpening comes close to what refrigerated ice needs; the detail is on the Is synthetic ice bad for skates? page.
The exception: what the data shows
There is one exception, and it is worth being precise about. Glice went through a development breakthrough, and its performance was measured independently by the Fraunhofer Institute for Mechanics of Materials, Europe's largest organization for applied research. Of the leading synthetic ice surfaces it measured best on all three properties, 52% less friction, 45% less indentation and 6% less abrasion than the next-best. Against frozen ice at low sliding speed, its friction came out close to and slightly below the laboratory reference.
In plain terms, one measured synthetic surface matches real ice glide at recreational speed.
Two honest limits belong with that. At the higher speeds of competitive skating, freshly resurfaced refrigerated ice is expected to have lower friction, and no international federation has homologated synthetic ice for official competition. And refrigerated ice is not one thing: a freshly resurfaced competition rink and a soft, slushy Christmas-market rink are worlds apart, as any serious skater knows. So the fair question is always which refrigerated ice you compare against. Against everyday refrigerated ice, top synthetic ice often skates better; against perfect refrigerated competition ice, at speed, it does not quite. The full method is on the Fraunhofer measurement page.
Why the sport's governing body took notice
In June 2026, the International Skating Union invited Glice to address its 60th Ordinary Congress in Tenerife, to 280 delegates, after ISU personnel tested the latest Glice generation in Lausanne. The case was about access, not replacement: rising energy costs put the sport under pressure, and in much of the world skaters train less than their talent deserves simply because there is no ice. Two examples were shown, a Swiss club now training year-round, on synthetic ice in summer and refrigerated ice in winter, and a Mexico City academy whose skaters train mostly on synthetic ice and have won medals. The federation's position was measured: for elite competition, refrigerated ice remains the benchmark, while an innovation like this expands access where refrigerated ice is not available. The full account is on the ISU Congress page.
The trade-off
Put simply, the decision weighs one thing against many. On one side is a slight glide difference at high speed, and only against perfectly resurfaced refrigerated ice. On the other is everything a synthetic rink removes. Here is what that is.
High-speed glide
A slight glide difference at high speed, compared with perfectly resurfaced refrigerated ice.
Operating advantages
- No refrigeration plant or refrigerants
- No energy or water to maintain a frozen surface
- No resurfacing downtime
- Flexible installation indoors or outdoors
- Lower running costs
Illustrative trade-off, not a numerical measurement. Cleaning and maintenance still require some water and power; actual running costs depend on the project.
What synthetic ice removes
These advantages belong to synthetic ice as a category, not to any one brand.
Ice time
A refrigerated Olympic-size rink (60 x 30 m) closes for resurfacing about every 90 minutes, roughly 20 minutes each time, which adds up to 160 minutes of resurfacing downtime in the 06:00–22:00 example below. Synthetic ice is never resurfaced, so there is no resurfacing downtime and the rink can be skated on continuously.
Ice Quality Throughout the Day
Illustrative surface-quality pattern: Glice without resurfacing cycles, compared with refrigerated ice between resurfacing closures.
Illustrative 06:00–22:00 timeline: eight 20-minute refrigerated-ice resurfacing closures, compared with no synthetic-ice resurfacing closures. Eight 20-minute closures total 160 minutes. Synthetic ice has no resurfacing closures.
Figures based on a standard Olympic-size rink (60 × 30 m). Actual values may vary depending on rink size, climate, and operating conditions.
Operating-hours example: 06:00–22:00. Curves and percentages are illustrative, not measured quality scores. No resurfacing downtime does not mean maintenance-free: synthetic ice still requires cleaning and inspection.
Energy
A refrigerated rink runs a cooling plant around the clock, on the order of 1.6 kWh per square metre per day. Synthetic ice needs no energy to run the surface, only minimal power for cleaning and maintenance.
Water
For this annual comparison, a refrigerated rink is assumed to consume roughly 70 litres of water per square metre per year. Synthetic ice needs none to run, and only a little for cleaning.
Emissions
Synthetic ice avoids the electricity needed to refrigerate the skating surface and the emissions associated with that electricity. Using the illustrative factor of 0.494 kg CO₂ per kWh, the annual comparison below shows the refrigeration-electricity emissions for a 60 × 30 m rink. Actual emissions depend on electricity supply and operating conditions.
Illustrative comparison for a 60 × 30 m rink operating for 365 days.
| Annual operating input | Refrigerated Ice | Glice |
|---|---|---|
| Refrigeration electricity | ~1,050,000 kWh/year | No refrigeration kWh |
| Water for the skating surface | ~126,000 litres/year | No resurfacing water |
| CO₂ from refrigeration electricity | ~519 tonnes/year | No refrigeration-electricity CO₂ |
Annual assumptions: 1.6 kWh/m²/day for refrigeration; 70 litres/m²/year for water; 0.494 kg CO₂/kWh as the illustrative electricity emissions factor. Totals are rounded. Actual values vary with rink size, climate, operating schedule, plant efficiency and local electricity supply.
The comparison covers maintaining the skating surface. Cleaning and maintenance still require some water and power. Avoided refrigeration-electricity emissions do not mean zero lifecycle emissions; manufacturing, transport and end-of-life impacts are outside this comparison.
Cost
Because the running inputs differ so much, the seasonal cost gap between the two systems is large. The clearest way to see it for your own project is to run your rink size and local rates through the calculator.
Compare seasonal operating inputs
Indicative operating inputs only. Excludes cleaning, staffing, capital, rent and other project costs.
Weather and location
Refrigerated ice turns watery and slushy from about 17°C (63°F), and can only be built where a cooling plant can go. Synthetic ice softens but keeps skating in the heat, and installs indoors or outdoors, in almost any climate, in far more places.
In short
For elite, high-speed competition, refrigerated ice remains the benchmark, and it varies enormously everywhere else. Top synthetic ice, measured by Fraunhofer, matches real ice glide at recreational speed, and synthetic ice as a category runs with no refrigeration, no energy, no water, no refrigerants and no resurfacing downtime, almost anywhere. The right choice comes down to which refrigerated ice you are comparing against, and whether a slight high-speed difference against perfectly resurfaced refrigerated ice outweighs everything synthetic ice saves.
