In the process of restoration, had to cut the original fiberglass floor out to get to the rotted substructure.
I cleaned all the crap out and got down to the layout of the original wood.
The wood was 1x3's layed flat. The first one was started dead center running length wise from the transom to about 3-4 foot from the nose. The rest was layed side to side. Then a final board was layed on edge down the center. They was only glassed in around the perimeter.
Then a layer glass was layed to make the actual floor.
What I do not understand is the logic behind this design. The wood was not protected in any way from water. It actually was forced to lay in water because the drain whole was above the wood, above the floor.
Now the question is, how could this modified or redesigned in a way that would promote better drainage and protect the wood?
Here is a picture to try to point out what I am saying above:
Here is a shot that gives a view of how the original boards where glassed in:
Thanks
I cleaned all the crap out and got down to the layout of the original wood.
The wood was 1x3's layed flat. The first one was started dead center running length wise from the transom to about 3-4 foot from the nose. The rest was layed side to side. Then a final board was layed on edge down the center. They was only glassed in around the perimeter.
Then a layer glass was layed to make the actual floor.
What I do not understand is the logic behind this design. The wood was not protected in any way from water. It actually was forced to lay in water because the drain whole was above the wood, above the floor.
Now the question is, how could this modified or redesigned in a way that would promote better drainage and protect the wood?
Here is a picture to try to point out what I am saying above:

Here is a shot that gives a view of how the original boards where glassed in:

Thanks