Five-a-side Soccer Field
• Short Grass Design + Superior Performance: Delivers the precise bounce and optimal ball trajectory required for competition, meeting the demands of professional play.
Caged Mini Football Field
• Non-infill Structure: Completely eliminates loose filler material, keeping the area tidy.
• Exceptional wear resistance: Easily handles heavy use with minimal maintenance required.
Indoor Soccer Field
• Zero-Particle Dust: Eliminates contamination from fillers, keeps air fresh, and makes cleaning effortless.
• Full Performance: Delivers an outstanding athletic experience indoors.
Campus
• Safety First: Provides students with a soft, cushioned playing surface to effectively prevent sports injuries.
• Cost-Effective Choice: Extremely low maintenance costs enable schools to manage athletic facilities effortlessly over the long term.
Non-infill Turf vs. Infill Turf Comparison Chart
| Project | Non-infill Turf | Traditional infill turf |
| Filler | Not required | Usually requires quartz sand + rubber particles |
| Environmental protection | More environmentally friendly, no particle pollution | Filling particles are prone to produce microplastics and odors |
| Maintenance cost | Low maintenance, no need to add materials or backfill particles | Filling materials need to be replenished and cleaned regularly |
| Foot feel and safety | Softer foot feel, good cushioning | Slightly harder, filling particles have a mitigating effect on impact |
| Construction efficiency | Short construction period, saving labor and materials | Construction is more complicated and requires multiple filling processes |
| Applicable scenarios | Rooftops, indoors, schools, communities | Large outdoor standard football fields |
| Price cost | Higher (the turf itself is expensive) | Lower (the turf is cheap but needs to be filled) |
Leave a Reply