The spacing of the grooves is either 20 or 25mm- can't remember which and I can't measure it as all my surfaces are painted over now... The width and depth of the grooves was probably around 1.5mm x 1.5mm from memory. Multiply it all out to arrive at a volume per square meter. Then multiply this out by the density of your resin and you will know the weight increase per meter... I did all this back in the day and from memory it added about 10% weight to the finished panel assuming a 600-800gsm laminate each side of a 15mm thickness core. Considering my boat has about 2 tonnes of cored panel in total, it would have been 200kg heavier than using flow media - that's more than the weight of an engine... So it is significant, but unless outright performance is a key design criteria, the infusions were a lot easier using the grooved foam.
The percentage weight increase is not ss extreme if the panels are heavier laminates or thicker cores as the amount of extra resin stays the same but is proportionally less than the total. So you won't notice the difference as much on panels that are say, 25mm thick with 2000gsm laminates both sides.... If that's what the design needs, then going to grooved foam might only add about 3% to the total weight if you get what I mean? You can plug all this into a spreadsheet and it will do all the math for you... But lightweight racing sailboats typically use around the 600gsm per side laminate weight so the difference is significant. If the panels were for a large ocean going motor yacht built to survey with massive laminates and higher density foam cores, the weight gain would be insignificant for example... The benefit of easier infusions would allow significant cost savings for the builder tho. The flow modelling doesn't have to be a accurate and the resin line placements are not so critical with the grooves so the probability of dry spots is lower and setup time is quicker to name some of the benefits...