So I've been a bit at odds with the use of the term "rain grooved pavement" - not really believing that vertical grooves cut into pavement are purposefully for rain drainage. We all know they blow to drive on - but it was the term used that bothered me a bit. A previous post I commented on findings I came across from Nasa that showed how vertical grooves in pavement help to displace - not drain - water - in order to provide better traction for a vehicles tire...well - I checked with a few departments of transportation - and this is pretty much what I received across the board (I chose Ohio's response to post since that's where I do most of my riding). Just putting it out there for informational purposes:

"The pavement grooves in concrete pavement are intended to provide a surface with acceptable surface friction or skid resistant properties while at the same time maintaining adequate rideability and drainage.

Ohio's standard grooving for many years has been transverse (across the lane, i.e. left to right) grooving or tining. This provides surface texture and at the same time provides very small channels for water to drain across the pavement to the shoulders. There are some routes in Ohio and other states that use longitudinal grooving (typ. tining or diamond grinding). The advantage to longitudinal grooving is a smoother pavement and a quieter pavement with regard to tire/pavement noise with cars and trucks. Advocates of longitudinal grooving do not believe there is any adverse affect upon drainage.

Ohio is currently considering changing it's specifications to either allow or require the use of longitudinal grooving. However, this issue is not resolved at this time. "

 

I posted on this about a week ago, and this may sound stupid, but the more I ride on it (primarily I-95 in NY), the more I wonder if maybe there should be representatives from the motorcycle community (ABATE, MSF, whoever) when these road construction projects are proposed to give some input on how dangerous this pavement can be for a motorcycle and maybe see if a different mix or grooving method or something can be done. I completely understand the need for displacing water in the rain, but there should be some type of compromise...

 

There has been some research around this in Colorado. They have been considering using varying widths and changing widths, rather than the parallel grooves of today. This change will "supposedly" correct the "wheel tracking" that occurs with current methods. I don't know if this is something being considered nationwide.

I've found that the "rain grooves" aren't a problem for me, but the groves left prior to the resurfacing of a road are horrible.

 

I'm at odds with the term "vertical" grooves cut into pavement. That means going straight up!

 

Rain groves SUCK

 

They do suck.....but those metal bridges take the cake. Thank God they're not too many of those......

now back on to subject

 

Here Here, I second that!

 

dump the dunlop tires and get Michelin's. Lops follow every road irregularity....there are plenty of other tires that do not track with rain grooves, tar snakes, etc.

 

I ride a stretch of I-26 with rain grooves often. With the stock dunlops I never felt comfortable. Road it last week with the new Metz 880's and they made a big difference!

 

I have a love/hate relationship with the rain grooves. When its raining, I'm all for them. But the thought of sliding down the road on them in a tshirt, shorts and flipflops just gives me the ******.

ATGATT (All The Gear All The Time)

daryl