What Material Are Race Tracks Made Of?

Running track surfaces can make or break athletic performance, causing injuries and compromising results when poorly designed. Traditional materials often fail to balance durability, shock absorption, and all-weather performance needed for optimal training and competition.

Modern race tracks are made of several materials including polyurethane (PU) systems with EPDM granules, permeable rubber tracks, prefabricated rubber roll materials, artificial turf, and asphalt/concrete foundations with specialized layers, with PU systems offering the best combination of shock absorption, durability, and performance.

During my 15+ years in sports surface coating manufacturing, I’ve witnessed firsthand how track materials have evolved. As the CTO of MPU Coatings, I’ve helped develop and install advanced polyurethane running track systems across Asia. Let me share what I’ve learned about these sophisticated surface materials and why they matter for athletes and facility managers.

What Makes Polyurethane (PU) Running Tracks Superior?

Athletes and coaches increasingly demand track surfaces that enhance performance while preventing injuries, but many facilities struggle to identify which materials truly deliver on these promises.

Polyurethane (PU) running tracks are superior because they provide excellent shock absorption (≥35% per GB/T 22517.6 standards), outstanding tensile strength (≥0.7MPa) preventing cracking for 5-8 years, consistent performance in all weather conditions, and customizable physical properties to meet specific athletic requirements.

The Science Behind PU Track Systems

When I first started developing running track systems, I was fascinated by the complex engineering behind what appears to be a simple surface. Polyurethane tracks represent the pinnacle of sports surface technology for several key reasons:

Material Composition and Structure

A professional polyurethane track system consists of multiple carefully engineered layers:

Layer	Materials	Thickness	Function
Base Layer	Crushed stone or asphalt	200-300mm	Structural foundation, drainage
Binding Layer	Two-component polyurethane binder	10-12mm	Force distribution, shape retention
Performance Layer	PU prepolymer + hardener mixed with 1-3mm rubber granules	8-13mm	Shock absorption, energy return
Spray Coating	Colored PU with EPDM granules	2-3mm	Weather protection, traction, aesthetics
Line Marking	Specialized PU paint	<1mm	Competition standardization

The two-component polyurethane system¹ is the critical technology that gives these tracks their superior properties. Component A (the prepolymer) and Component B (the hardener/catalyst) create a chemical reaction during installation that forms a permanently elastic yet incredibly durable surface.

This chemical process allows us to precisely control the physical properties of the track. By adjusting the formulation, we can create tracks with specific characteristics:

• Higher elasticity for training facilities (reducing injury risk)
• Firmer surfaces for competition venues (enhancing speed)
• Balanced properties for multi-purpose facilities

In a recent Olympic-level project, we formulated a custom PU system with carefully calibrated energy return properties. Athletes reported that the surface felt "responsive" and "fast," with several setting personal records during the first competition on the new track.

Performance Metrics That Matter

The superiority of polyurethane tracks is validated through rigorous testing against international standards:

1. Shock Absorption: PU tracks achieve ≥35% absorption (tested per GB/T 22517.6), significantly reducing impact forces on athletes’ joints. This translates to approximately 30% less knee and ankle stress compared to asphalt surfaces.

2. Tensile Strength: With values exceeding 0.7MPa, these surfaces resist tearing and cracking even under extreme use conditions. This explains why quality PU tracks maintain their integrity for 5-8 years even in harsh climates.

3. Weather Resistance: Advanced UV stabilizers and moisture-resistant chemistry allow these tracks to maintain consistent performance characteristics from -20°C to +70°C. We’ve installed systems in both tropical Singapore and cold northern China with equal success.

4. Force Reduction: Quality PU systems provide 25-35% force reduction, creating the optimal balance between comfort and performance. This is why elite athletes increasingly prefer these surfaces.

5. Friction Coefficient: Our specialized PU coatings maintain a friction coefficient between 0.5-0.7 (wet or dry), providing secure footing without excessive grip that could cause joint strain.

These performance characteristics explain why over 80% of international track and field competitions now take place on polyurethane surfaces. The initial investment may be higher than some alternatives, but the performance benefits and longevity make them the most cost-effective solution over time.

How Do EPDM Granule Tracks Combine Performance with Cost-Efficiency?

Many facility managers struggle with limited budgets while still needing to provide safe, high-performance athletic surfaces for their users.

EPDM granule tracks combine performance with cost-efficiency through composite construction using 30% recycled tire granules in the base layer (costing only $8/kg) with a thinner 2-3mm top layer of virgin colored EPDM granules, reducing overall costs by 15-25% while maintaining essential performance metrics.

Innovative Approaches to EPDM Track Construction

Working with budget-conscious clients has pushed us to develop innovative approaches to track construction without compromising essential performance characteristics:

The Composite Construction Approach

To optimize the cost-performance balance, we’ve pioneered a composite construction method:

1. Base Layer Engineering:

   • We utilize a mixture of polyurethane binder² with approximately 30% recycled rubber granules³ from waste tires
   • This reduces material costs substantially as recycled rubber costs only about $8/kg compared to $24-30/kg for virgin EPDM
   • The base layer still provides critical shock absorption and structural integrity

2. Performance Top Layer:

   • A 2-3mm layer of virgin EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) granules creates the surface
   • These granules can be customized in virtually any color combination
   • The thinner top layer significantly reduces the quantity of expensive virgin materials needed
   • Specialized binders ensure the top layer bonds permanently to the base layer

This approach typically reduces overall material costs by 15-25% while maintaining most of the performance benefits of full-thickness EPDM or PU systems.

Critical Design Considerations

Through multiple projects, I’ve identified several critical factors that determine the success of EPDM granule tracks:

1. Granule Size Selection:
   The size of EPDM granules⁴ dramatically impacts track performance. We learned this lesson the hard way in a Chengdu project where the client insisted on using 0.5mm granules to save costs. After installation, the surface became dangerously slippery after rain, resulting in multiple injuries and complaints. The track had to be completely removed and reinstalled with proper 1-3mm granules, costing an additional $120,000.

2. Color Stability Engineering:
   Not all EPDM is created equal when it comes to color retention. In early projects, we discovered significant color fading on red and blue tracks within 2-3 years. We now use only EPDM with incorporated (not coated) pigmentation and UV stabilizers, ensuring color stability for 5+ years even in tropical climates.

3. Binder-to-Granule Ratio:
   The perfect balance between polyurethane binder² and EPDM granules⁴ is critical. Too little binder leads to granule loss and surface deterioration; too much creates a hard, slippery surface. Through extensive testing, we’ve determined that a 18-20% binder ratio provides optimal performance and longevity.

4. Installation Temperature Control:
   EPDM granule systems are particularly sensitive to installation conditions. We now carefully monitor ambient temperature and humidity, ideally installing at 15-25°C with humidity below 80%. This ensures proper curing and bonding between layers.

When properly designed and installed, EPDM granule tracks offer an excellent balance of performance, aesthetics, and cost-efficiency, making them increasingly popular for school facilities and community sports centers with moderate budgets.

What Makes Permeable Running Track Systems Essential for Rainy Climates?

In regions with high rainfall, traditional track surfaces often become unusable due to standing water, creating safety hazards and disrupting training schedules.

Permeable running track systems are essential for rainy climates because they incorporate a layered structure with 10-30mm stone aggregate base (≥80mm thick), a middle layer of EPDM with 30-40% porosity, and a polyurethane seal coat, achieving drainage rates of 15mm/min that exceed typical heavy rainfall (5-8mm/min).

Engineering Solutions for Water Management

Having installed running track systems across Southeast Asia’s tropical environments, I’ve developed specialized approaches to water management:

Anatomical Structure of Permeable Systems

A properly designed permeable track system consists of several carefully engineered layers:

1. Foundation Layer:

   • 80-100mm of precisely graded crushed stone (10-30mm diameter)
   • Compacted to achieve 30-40% void content for water passage
   • Sloped at 0.5-1% to direct water flow toward drainage points

2. Intermediate Layer:

   • Specialized porous rubber mat or in-situ mixed rubber crumb (5-10mm thickness)
   • Bound with moisture-curing polyurethane that maintains porosity
   • Creates transition between rough stone and performance surface

3. Performance Layer:

   • Open-cell structure EPDM/PU mixture with 30-40% porosity
   • 10-13mm thickness to provide required shock absorption
   • Specially formulated to maintain porosity while delivering athletic performance

4. Sealing Layer:

   • Spray-applied polyurethane coating with engineered microporosity
   • Creates smooth running surface while allowing water penetration
   • Contains UV stabilizers and color pigments for longevity and aesthetics

Real-World Performance Data

The effectiveness of these systems has been proven through field testing and practical installations:

In a Guangdong province project completed last year, we conducted water permeability testing⁵ under simulated rainfall conditions. The results were impressive:

• Average water infiltration rate: 15mm per minute
• Typical heavy tropical rainfall: 5-8mm per minute
• Surface remained completely free of standing water even under artificial "cloudburst" conditions of 25mm in 5 minutes
• Track surface dried within 10 minutes after water application ceased

This performance means the track remains usable almost immediately after even the heaviest rainfall, providing consistent training conditions regardless of weather.

Climate-Specific Formulation Adjustments

We’ve learned that permeable systems require specific adjustments based on the installation climate:

1. Tropical Environments (e.g., Singapore, Thailand):

   • Higher fungicide content in the binder to prevent mold growth
   • Increased UV stabilizers to counter intense sun exposure
   • Modified curing accelerators to account for high humidity

2. Seasonal Rainfall Areas (e.g., Central China):

   • Frost-resistant porosity design to prevent freeze-thaw damage
   • Specialized hydrophobic additives that still allow water passage
   • Increased flexibility modifiers to accommodate temperature variations

3. Salt-Exposure Areas (e.g., Coastal Installations):

   • Corrosion-resistant aggregate selection
   • Salt-tolerant binder formulations
   • Enhanced washing mechanisms in the drainage design

The success of permeable systems relies on this attention to climate-specific details—a lesson we learned through early failures where standard formulations performed poorly in extreme environments.

Why Are Pre-Fabricated Roll Materials Gaining Popularity?

Construction timelines are becoming increasingly compressed, putting pressure on track installation schedules and creating demand for faster solutions that don’t compromise quality.

Prefabricated roll materials are gaining popularity because they enable rapid installation (50 workers can complete 2,000m² in just 3 days), offer factory-controlled quality consistency, eliminate weather-dependent curing time, and provide immediate usability after installation, though they require careful joint management to prevent separation issues.

The Evolution of Roll Material Technology

Having worked with both traditional in-situ installations and prefabricated systems, I can share insights on this rapidly growing segment:

Advantages of Modern Roll Systems

Contemporary prefabricated roll materials⁶ offer significant advantages:

1. Installation Speed:
   In a recent project for a property developer with an urgent completion deadline, we utilized prefabricated rolls (1.2m wide × 20m long). A team of 50 installers completed the entire 2,000m² track in just 3 days—a process that would have taken 14-18 days with traditional methods.

2. Consistent Physical Properties:
   Factory production creates remarkable consistency in thickness (±0.1mm variance vs. ±1.5mm for in-situ installation) and density. This translates to more predictable athletic performance across the entire surface.

3. Weather Independence:
   Installation can proceed in conditions that would prevent traditional systems from curing properly, including temperatures as low as 5°C and humidity as high as 90%.

4. Immediate Usability:
   Unlike poured-in-place systems that require 3-7 days of curing before use, roll materials can be used immediately after installation, reducing facility downtime.

5. Reduced On-Site Emissions:
   With most of the curing process completed in the factory environment, there are significantly fewer VOC emissions during installation—an important consideration for enclosed facilities or environmentally sensitive areas.

The Critical Joint Challenge

While roll materials offer compelling advantages, they come with one significant challenge: joint management. In the property developer project mentioned earlier, we encountered a painful lesson about two years after installation when the track developed serious joint separation issues.

The problem stemmed from thermal expansion and contraction cycles. Temperature fluctuations caused the material to expand and contract repeatedly, which gradually weakened the adhesive bonds at the seams. Eventually, gaps appeared, creating both performance and safety issues.

The repair costs reached approximately 40% of the original installation price—a significant expense that could have been avoided with proper joint design and installation techniques.

Based on this experience, we’ve developed enhanced joint management protocols⁷:

1. Enhanced Adhesive Systems:
   We now use specialized two-component polyurethane adhesives⁸ with elongation properties matching the roll material, allowing the joint to flex without breaking the bond.

2. Joint Reinforcement:
   Installing reinforcement strips beneath the main seams provides additional support and distributes strain across a wider area.

3. Temperature-Controlled Installation:
   Installing at the median of expected temperature extremes (typically 15-20°C) minimizes the total expansion/contraction distance the joints must accommodate.

4. Joint Pattern Design:
   Strategic joint positioning that avoids placing seams in high-stress areas (such as lane transitions or start/finish areas) reduces failure risk.

When these protocols are followed, modern roll systems can deliver excellent longevity while maintaining their installation speed advantage.

What Are the Limitations of Alternative Track Surfaces?

Facility managers considering alternatives to traditional polyurethane and EPDM surfaces often lack comprehensive information about the practical limitations of these options.

Alternative track surfaces have significant limitations: artificial turf tracks reach dangerous surface temperatures (up to 60°C vs. 45°C for PU tracks) and harbor bacteria (75% exceed health standards); asphalt/concrete tracks provide inadequate shock absorption (<10% vs. 35%+ for PU) requiring expensive cushioning layers; and natural surfaces require intensive maintenance and have limited usability in wet conditions.

Critical Analysis of Alternative Options

Through my years in the sports surfacing industry, I’ve gathered valuable data on various alternative surfaces:

Artificial Turf Running Tracks

While increasingly marketed as versatile options, artificial turf tracks present several serious concerns:

1. Extreme Surface Temperatures:
   Our thermal imaging studies of various surfaces during summer conditions revealed alarming differences:

   • Polyurethane track surface: 42-45°C
   • EPDM granule track: 46-48°C
   • Artificial turf track: 58-62°C

   This extreme heat not only creates uncomfortable running conditions but also poses genuine health risks, particularly for children and during extended training sessions.

2. Microbial Contamination:
   The infill materials used in artificial turf tracks create an ideal environment for bacterial growth. In a collaborative study with a regional testing laboratory, we examined 20 community artificial turf installations:

   • 75% exceeded recommended bacterial count limits
   • 40% showed presence of potentially harmful pathogens
   • Areas with sand infill showed 3-5× higher contamination than rubber infill

   This contamination risk is particularly concerning for facilities used by children or for multi-purpose activities.

3. Inconsistent Performance Characteristics:
   Artificial turf tracks produce highly variable athletic performance metrics:

   • Shock absorption varies by 15-20% across the surface
   • Energy return is unpredictable and generally poor
   • Traction changes dramatically with moisture conditions
   • Compression over time creates uneven running surfaces

Improved Artificial Turf Solutions

To address these limitations, we’ve developed enhanced turf systems incorporating:

• TPE (Thermoplastic Elastomer) fibers that resist heat absorption
• Anti-microbial infill materials that inhibit bacterial growth
• Enhanced drainage layers that prevent water accumulation
• Shock absorption pads beneath the turf layer

These improvements increase costs to approximately $280/m² (compared to $220/m² for standard artificial turf tracks) but extend useful life to 8+ years while addressing the most serious health and performance concerns.

Asphalt and Concrete Running Surfaces

Traditional hard surfaces remain common due to their perceived durability and low initial cost, but their limitations are significant:

1. Inadequate Shock Absorption:
   Biomechanical testing shows these surfaces provide less than 10% shock absorption—far below the 35%+ provided by quality polyurethane systems. This deficiency translates directly to increased impact forces on athletes’ joints.

2. Surface Temperature Issues:
   Dark asphalt surfaces can reach temperatures exceeding 65°C in direct sunlight, making them unusable during hot weather and potentially causing burns on contact.

3. Seasonal Damage Cycles:
   The rigid nature of these surfaces makes them vulnerable to seasonal expansion and contraction, leading to cracking and surface degradation within 3-5 years in variable climates.

4. Poor Athletic Performance:
   Hard surfaces provide inadequate energy return and inconsistent traction, leading to slower times and increased injury risk.

Cushioning Solutions for Hard Surfaces

To address the inherent limitations of asphalt and concrete, two primary cushioning solutions have emerged:

1. Cushioned Rubber Layer System:

   • 5cm thick layer of bound rubber granules (+$50/m²)
   • Provides approximately 20-25% shock absorption
   • Requires specialized installation techniques
   • Vulnerable to separation from the base over time

2. Prefabricated Cushioning Panels:

   • Factory-produced rubber panels (+$80/m²)
   • More consistent shock absorption (25-30%)
   • Faster installation process
   • Better long-term adhesion to base layer
   • Superior moisture resistance

While these solutions improve performance, they still generally fall short of purpose-built polyurethane track systems in terms of both athletic performance and long-term durability. The total cost after adding proper cushioning typically exceeds that of mid-range PU systems, making them questionable value propositions.

How Do Environmental Factors Influence Running Track Material Selection?

Facility planners often underestimate how significantly local environmental conditions should impact track material selection, leading to premature deterioration and performance issues.

Environmental factors influence track material selection through UV exposure requirements (requiring stabilizers in high-sun regions), temperature fluctuation considerations (demanding flexible materials in variable climates), humidity and rainfall patterns (necessitating proper drainage in wet regions), air pollution impacts (affecting surface degradation rates), and substrate movement patterns (requiring crack-bridging capabilities in unstable foundations).

Climate-Specific Material Selection Framework

Based on our installation experience across diverse climates, I’ve developed a decision framework for environment-appropriate track materials:

UV Exposure Considerations

In high-sun environments like southern China, Singapore, and Thailand, UV degradation represents the primary threat to track longevity:

UV Exposure Level	Material Recommendation	Special Requirements
Extreme (tropical)	Aliphatic PU systems	Additional UV stabilizers, heat-reflective pigments
High (subtropical)	EPDM with specialized binder	UV-resistant top coating, light color selection
Moderate	Standard PU or EPDM	Regular maintenance coating (3-4 year cycle)
Low (indoor)	Cost-optimized PU systems	Reduced UV package, focus on wear resistance

A practical example comes from our contrasting experiences in Hainan (tropical) versus Shanghai installations. In Hainan, standard materials showed color degradation and hardening within 2-3 years, while our UV-enhanced systems maintained performance for 7+ years. In Shanghai, the same standard materials performed adequately with normal maintenance cycles.

Temperature Fluctuation Management

Regions with significant seasonal temperature variations require specialized material properties:

1. Cold Climate Solutions (northern China, high-altitude installations):

   • Enhanced elastomeric properties that maintain flexibility at low temperatures
   • Low-temperature crack resistance additives
   • Special winter maintenance protocols

2. Variable Climate Solutions (central regions with both hot summers and cold winters):

   • Balanced hardness profile (Shore A 55-65)
   • Enhanced tensile strength (≥1.0 MPa)
   • Superior elongation properties (≥150%)

3. Hot Climate Solutions (southern regions):

   • Heat-reflective pigmentation
   • Thermal stability enhancers
   • Resistance to softening at high temperatures

In a particularly challenging installation in Northeastern China, where temperatures range from -25°C in winter to +35°C in summer, we developed a specialized PU formulation with temperature-adaptive polymers⁹ that maintain consistent hardness and elasticity across this extreme range. After four years, this track shows minimal seasonal stress damage compared to conventional materials in adjacent facilities that developed severe cracking.

Humidity and Rainfall Pattern Adaptation

Moisture management requirements vary dramatically by region:

1. High Rainfall Regions:
   In locations like Guangdong province with annual rainfall exceeding 1,700mm, we recommend:

   • Fully permeable systems with 15mm/min+ drainage capacity
   • Enhanced fungicide packages to prevent mold growth
   • Specialized surface texturing for wet-condition traction

2. Seasonal Rainfall Regions:
   For areas with distinct wet/dry seasons, hybrid systems offer advantages:

   • Semi-permeable designs that balance drainage with durability
   • Specialized edge drainage to prevent water migration under the track
   • Strategic drainage channels at critical points

3. Arid Regions:
   In drier environments, different priorities emerge:

   • Enhanced resistance to thermal cycling damage
   • Superior UV protection
   • Reduced need for porosity/drainage features
   • Focus on preventing surface shrinkage

Air Quality Impact Considerations

Often overlooked, local air quality significantly affects track material performance:

1. Industrial Areas:
   Regions with heavy industry require:

   • Enhanced chemical resistance packages
   • Acid rain resistant formulations
   • More frequent cleaning protocols
   • Sacrificial top coats that can be renewed

2. Coastal Environments:
   Salt-laden air creates unique challenges:

   • Corrosion-resistant components
   • Salt-penetration barriers
   • Special consideration for metal elements (drainage, edging)

3. Urban Environments:
   City installations face particulate pollution:

   • Smooth surfaces that resist particulate embedding
   • Easier cleaning characteristics
   • Resistance to vehicle emission deposits

Through careful environmental analysis and material selection, quality track systems can be engineered to provide consistent performance across these diverse conditions. Our experience has shown that environment-appropriate material selection can extend track lifespan by 30-50% compared to generic specifications.

Conclusion

Running track materials have evolved significantly beyond simple asphalt or concrete surfaces. Today’s advanced systems—particularly polyurethane and EPDM-based tracks—offer precisely engineered performance characteristics that enhance athletic achievement while reducing injury risk. The selection of appropriate materials requires careful consideration of intended use, environmental conditions, budget constraints, and long-term maintenance capacity. For facility managers seeking the optimal balance of performance, longevity, and cost-effectiveness, professionally designed polyurethane systems typically provide the greatest overall value despite higher initial investment.

---

External Links