The rear deck surface is under no real downward load, so I think I will side with the boatbuilder on this one.
See I'd argue if the rear section needs such a stiffener to prevent a foot cracking the hull then why aren't there several more of them down the main deck area as well ???
That and the fact that the plate was only a couple of inches from a major structural support tends to make me think you'd want to be fairly accurate on exactly where you put that foot on that screaming reach...
I'd also argue if, as your suggesting, "The rear deck surface is under no real downward load" then why did the original plate extend out under the deck as far as it did down the hull side ???
further more for downward load on the deck..... where do your hands go when your clearing a lump of seaweed from the rudder or trying to un-jam a stuck rudder blade, on the rear deck obviously, but only where the ply plate was which in reality is just behind the alloy beam, you couldn't place a hand any further back because it offers zero support from there back.
After removing the 2 ply plates, you are going to add stringers, beef up the area where you have just removed the support and if you do as you have with your boat, going to add glass as well?
I'm not trying to be smart, but I did read overkill there somewhere..
The 2 plates are long gone along with the crazy amount of resin they'd been glued in with, resin must have been dirt cheap back then going by the amount that's been liberally applied throughout the boat, the weight or the 2 WRC (western red cedar) 10x14 stringers, the small piece of 40gsm cloth and the 2 WRC tags I'll glue in for the foot strap screws wont weigh as much as the ply plates and chunky resin that was there..... I'll also gain deck strength for when that heavy mit is placed on it.
As I said earlier, I'd have retained the plate IF it had of been further back towards the transom, this would have increased the foot supporting area and better assisted the rear deck aswell.... hell I'd have left it there if it had of atleast made the front edge of the hatch hole but to be only a couple of inches back from the rear beam there's just no advantage for it at all.
Always good to see how others think that a particular thing should work, I'm not always right but I try and make the best of a structural **** without going overboard, I can clearly see where your thinking is and I do to an extent agree with the ply plate design, just not its original location .... had it have been 6" from the back beam it would still be there and with a 2" lightening hole through the guts !!
