Mike explained my situation better than I could. With the sot close to
sinking, which it appeared to be, the stability situation changes a lot.
I can easily imagine that this might not be typical, even for an sot,
which I suppose is why people are having trouble with my experience and
analysis.

This was not a narrow high performance type of sit on top, just looking
at it, you could see that it was an inexpensive recreational type of
kayak. I know a narrow boat when I see one, and this was not a narrow
boat. Brian and Marsh have basically ignored my statement that this
was not a narrow high performance boat that could logically be expected
to be inherently unstable for an inexperienced user, but a wider
recreational boat that should have been very stable, but was very
unstable for me. Mike at least is listening to me.

Richard



Michael Daly wrote:
On 19-Jun-2004, Brian Nystrom wrote:


(THS in MPH = 1.34 x the square root of the waterline
length).


Minor nit - that formula's for knots, not mph.

By the way , the guy did say he practically sank the sot. In that
case, stability would be limited and lifting his legs _might_ have
done the trick regardless of the CG change. His comment about the
elliptical section suggests that the sot has a bit of tumblehome.
That would mean that if he's significantly close to sinking, he
has no righting moment increase on heel. Any reduction in
stabilization ("sponson" effects, roll damping from his legs, CG
position etc) can undo everything.

While your argument is completely correct for the typical situation,
I think his explanation is a bit vague/difficult to envision - hence
he might be partially correct without being able to express it in
standard terms. The bigger problem is that he's viewing the general
characteristics of kayaks from his single, possibly atypical,
experience.

Mike