Yea, I looked through your 302 thread, but did not see that you finished. I did that same sort of thing, as far as giving water an escape route, when i did some structural work and fuel tank replacement on my 242.

I installed a channel under the tank. It is 'rounded corner bead' stock that I got at Home Depot.
http://home.comcast.net/%7Etpenfield...s/IMG_0472.jpg

And also provided some space behind the tank for inspection and drainage.
http://home.comcast.net/%7Etpenfield...s/IMG_0593.jpg

I am thinking of providing an area of inspection/drainage space behind the tank of my 330 as well, when I install the new bulkhead.

It is that way stock on my 85. Found out the stupid way early in my ownership of it. Wanted to clean the bilge in the engine compartment, and thought a good way was to flood the area with soapy water, pull it around for several miles, including one stop sign at the bottom of a hill, and then pull the plug and drain the soapy water, leaving behind a shiny clean bilge. Well, it takes a lot of time and effort to remove the soapy water from the cabin's carpet. And at that point I really didn't care about the dirty engine compartment either.

Point is there is free movement for water past the fuel tank on an 85 302. And it is not always a good thing.

Formulas have drainage from the cabin to the engine compartment that bypasses the fuel bay (via a 1" tube).

There should be a plug for the drain up in the cabin bilge to prevent the back flow if engine bilge has a fair amount of water in it.

What seems to be lacking is drainage of some sort for the fuel tank bay, so water collects in there.

Update:

Today was bulkhead cutting day. I got a fair amount done, but there is still some more to go. Here are a few pictures of the day . . .

Adding some support to the hull in the area of the bulkhead

http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...s/IMG_3178.jpg

Taking all of the fixtures and fasteners off the bulkhead to loosen up the wiring and plumbing. I drilled a starting hole for the sawzall on the port side, right next to the stringer.

http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...s/IMG_3187.jpg

I cut the bulkhead out in 3 major sections (upper, port, starboard). There is the upper and the port side removed.

http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...s/IMG_3212.jpg

Here is the starboard side removed.

http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...s/IMG_3214.jpg

I still have a bit more cutting to do, but that was all of the time that I had today. The lower bulkhead sections were really wet, so I'm glad that they are out of the boat now.

I also made a couple of videos of the work, etc. . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXLkQo_TRxs I probably won't do anything more until after the holidays.

Here is an additional video from the day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dXMNJ5j2gY

Very cool to see you posting videos, Ted! Makes visualizing the work much easier for us. I'll be checking in often. Good luck.

Thanks, I am hoping things go somewhat according to plan, but there are usually some surprises once you start opening things up.

I have been thinking about the two 'discoveries' that I made while cutting out the bulkhead on Sunday.

(1) Bare wood on the hidden side of the bulkhead . . . and . . .

(2) the void in the foam on the port side, up against the bulkhead.

These 2 issues seemed to have worked in combination resulting in the 'wet' bulkhead after 15+ years of the boat's life.

I figure that the moisture that collected in the foam would tend to condense on the surface of the void area, and then have a downhill path to the exposed wood surface of the bulkhead as pictured below.
.
http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...-330-Foam1.jpg
.
You can also see a glimpse of the fuel tank in this picture (gray triangular shapes). So, it will also be interesting to see if moisture was trapped up against the tank surface.

So, it looks like a combination of issues can lead to problems after 10-15 years of a boat's life cycle. If the foam did not have a void . . . or . . .if the bulkhead had been fully glassed, then the moisture problem may not have happened at all. . . or be much more minimal.

a quick update:

I might get another day of work on the boat before the Christmas & New Year's holidays. Meanwhile, I have been wondering about one aspect of the structure . . . in terms of how the cockpit liner (assembly) and the stringer grid are mated. From what I can tell the cockpit assembly makes contact and is supported by the stringer grid only in a few areas shown by the red lines in the drawing below.

http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...ntactAreas.jpg

However, the cockpit sole merely rests on these contact points, it does not appear to be bonded or anything like that. Here is a close-up of the contact point along the starboard stringer

http://home.comcast.net/~tpenfield/F...s/IMG_1045.jpg

No tabbing or adhesive that I can see. The other contact/support areas are the same way. My 1991 242SS was also the same way, - the cockpit sole merely rested upon the stringer grid. On the 242 it was more of a flat surface and was symmetrical - port & starboard. The 330SS seems to be just the top edge of the stringer and bulkhead grid.

Anyway, have sent a note to Formula regarding the contact points and to ask if there is any advantage/disadvantage to bonding the cockpit sole to the stringer grid where they make contact. I just wanted to see if anyone else who has dug into the structural depths of their Formulas has noticed this aspect of the boat and has modified it or anything. :)

A Factory tour would work

It would be nice . . . I am wondering if I would have to buy a new boat from them first ?