BERG Trampolines: Inground vs. Flatground

InGround vs FlatGround: What’s the Difference?

When customers come to Trampolines Ireland looking to integrate a trampoline into their garden, one of the most frequent questions is: “Should I go InGround or FlatGround?” At first glance they might seem similar — both aim to reduce visual bulk and make access easier — but there are meaningful differences. This post breaks it down so your customers (and staff) can make informed decisions.

Terminology & how BERG defines them

InGround (or semi-inground / “low ground”)
With a BERG InGround trampoline, part of the frame is below ground level, but the top of the frame is still visible above the finished surface. In effect, you get a more subtle, lower-profile trampoline, but not completely flush with the ground. (BERG notes that with InGround, “only the frame is visible above the ground” in contrast with FlatGround)
FlatGround
The goal is full integration: the frame is installed such that it is flush with (or nearly flush with) the surrounding ground surface, so the trampoline “disappears” into the lawn. There should be little to no frame showing above the grassline.

So the key distinction: how much (if any) of the frame sits above the finished surface.

Why choose one over the other?

Each approach brings benefits and challenges. Below is a comparison in several important dimensions.

Factor	InGround	FlatGround
Visual integration	Good — less bulk than a full “standing” trampoline, but frame will still slightly protrude above ground	Excellent — ideally invisible frame, giving a neater, seamless garden finish
Ease of entry	Slight step up onto the trampoline is typically required (e.g. 10–30 cm)	Ideally no step — you “walk onto” the trampoline
Depth of excavation	Shallower than FlatGround in most cases	Requires a deeper, more precise excavation (“bowl shape”) to accommodate the frame flush with ground
Soil & drainage complexity	Still requires good drainage design, but less critical depth than FlatGround	Drainage is more demanding; pooling or silt issues can affect function if not done properly
Frame stress / structural demands	Less prone to lateral stress caused by flush surroundings pushing on sides	Because the frame is encased/embedded, there may be forces from surrounding soil, root pressure, etc., so good walling or retaining design is important
Suitability for nets / enclosures	You can still use safety nets; some slight clearance is needed for poles above the frame	Many FlatGround designs omit tall enclosures (depending on model), though some can still accommodate low-profile nets or hybrid designs
Maintenance & accessibility	Easier to access underside or legs (for inspection, weeding, repairs)	Harder to access frame underside once buried; you’ll want good access ports or removable elements
Cost & labour	Lower cost than full FlatGround in many cases (less digging, less precision work)	Higher cost: more excavation, more finishing, potentially more support/retaining structure
Suitability by soil type / site constraints	More forgiving; works in a wider range of gardens and soil types	More demanding on flatness, compaction, soil type, drainage — less tolerant of deviations

Technical considerations & installation tips

Excavation profile & shape

For InGround, you usually dig a “cell” or “pit” with gentler sidewalls. The circumference is often a little wider than the frame, giving room for soil clearance, frame netting, slight slope, and drainage media.
For FlatGround, the hole is more bowl-shaped: deeper in the centre, shallower at the edges, with slight camber to allow the spring mat to clear the frame edges properly. Many FlatGround installation guides show a “trampoline pit profile” with side gradients.
Your team should always follow the model-specific manual for the pit depth and sidewall slope: overshoot or undershoot can lead to problems.

Access for maintenance

Plan for access panels or removable tiles/sections so that you can inspect frame welds, remove debris, treat corrosion, etc. FlatGround designs that completely bury frame make this more difficult if not built in during installation.

Pros & Cons: a candid summary for your customers

InGround — Pros:

More modest excavation and lower cost than FlatGround in many cases
Easier maintenance access
Still gives a significantly lower profile than above-ground trampolines
Better drainage margin (less depth to manage)
Compatible with safety nets or enclosures

InGround — Cons:

Frame still visible above the ground — not fully seamless
Slight step-up required
Less “wow factor” flush aesthetic

FlatGround — Pros:

Best visual integration — almost seamless with lawn
No climbing step — better for aesthetics and ease of use
Less obtrusive in garden views
Premium feel / higher perceived value

FlatGround — Cons:

Harder access to buried frame for maintenance
Potential limitations or trade-offs in net/enclosure options

When to recommend which, in practice

Here are some practical guidelines your sales / installation team can use:

If the customer wants a premium “looks like part of the lawn” finish, and is willing to invest more, FlatGround is a great option — provided the site conditions are favourable (good drainage, stable soil, no steep slopes).
If the site has heavy clay, poor drainage, or significant leveling challenges, or the budget is tighter, InGround may offer better reliability with lower risks.
If the customer wants a safety net/enclosure, InGround offers more flexibility with vertical net poles. For FlatGround, check compatibility or alternative low-profile net options.
In sites where access to the frame underside might be needed (inspect, repair, treat corrosion), InGround gives you that option more easily.
For customers doing DIY or with modest excavation, start with InGround first — then reassure them that the visual gain is still substantial compared to full above-ground models.