I have loved them since I was a kid, the only issue I always had was the height. They would look perfect if they could be brought down in height a bit, especially the rear. Great job though.
Mine hydraulic and uses a Smiths hydraulic pump but there's better more modern pumps and systems available. There's lots of info here:- www.euro-nova.co.uk/vb/forumdisplay.php?24-Canopy-Hydraulic-System-and-Hinge-Assemblies
Looks a very nice job. I had one in 1975. One of the original Southampton made ones, with a rare flush panel sunroof, in yellow. Standard Beetle mechanics. Happy days!
Thank you for your comment. I regard the Nova as a classic car and the wheels that are on mine are in keeping with the style and size that would have been on these cars back in the early 70's and 80's. However, I do agree that wider wheels and tyres would look good
@@phillfenton thanks for the feed bk as i stay in boghall bathgate for 38 years just along the road from where it happened iam very interested in getting down too wat really happened as i myself have seen very strange lights in the bathgate hills.
Where did you get your staggered rims from? I have just bought a sterling kit car that I am fixing up, but Im finding it quite difficult to get a staggered size set of rims for it.
Almost bought a Nova, many years ago, in bright red. Beautiful car, but the sound of the thing really put me off. The Beetle exhaust clattering away ain't very sports car -ish.
Have loved these ever since I saw one parked up in the mid 1970s. For me it's a beautifully balanced design that looks as futuristic now as it did 50 years ago. Thanks for sharing.
Thanks for the walk around. I've been a fan of this particular car for a long time and am a fellow 'Sterling' owner from the US. Please continue to share more videos of the progress. Also, have you considered slightly wider wheels/tires front and rear to fill out the wheel wells? That for me is the most common issue with the Sterlin/Nova is folks still running the 7" tires and the car not looking as aggressive as it was designed to look.
So you are willing to discount all the physical evidence in favour of a water tower ar a different location. This hypothesis is insulting to the witness and to my intelligence. Sorry mate.
How do you account for the astonishing co-incidence that the water tower is a perfect match to Bob Taylors description of the object? And is only a hundred yards or so away from the alleged site of the incident. The probability of two objects bearing such an uncanny resemblance to each other and so close by must be millions to one.
@@phillfenton What resemblance? They're both round and domed? How do you account for the discrepancy of a road a fence and "a hundred yards or so". How do you account for the physical traces, the two spiked balls, the ripped pants, the injuries of the witness, the burnt carbon smell, the witnesses obvious sense of distress and confusion, and the absurdity of a forestry worker not knowing the difference between a device that wavers in and out of solidity and rests on two "tracks" and a plain old water tower. Your case for the water tower rests on the unreliability of the witness and a degree of fraudulence. please explain.
@@martinharris5017 - Here's my explanation here:- drive.google.com/file/d/0B8Aw... But you haven't answered my question -How do you account for the amazing coincidence of a water tower that looks like a UFO in the same woods where a UFO supposedly landed?
@@phillfenton What coincidence? I have answered already. Refer my prior comment. It is you that have avoided my points, not the other way around. The actual site of the event, complete with physical traces, is well established. In order for the water tower to have any relevance, the landing traces have to be discounted or explained as not relating to the encounter (highly unlikely) the witness has to have ripped his own pants and lied about the location, lied about the shape and size of the structure, lied about the means by which it rested on the ground, invented the spherical objects that "attacked" him and left physical traces. Once we've proven beyond any doubt that that ALL the evidence can be discounted, then we can look at your water tower hypothesis and the "coincidence" of such a structure being on the opposite side of the road and over a hundred yards away. The ball is in your court, my friend, to provide evidence that the witness was a liar. In order to provide the details he did and take police investigators to a site with traces that matched his testimony, he had to be a liar and a hoaxer, or telling the truth. These are the only two logical outcomes, and either way it doesn't help your theory that he mistook a strange apparition for a water tower.
@@martinharris5017 why don't you read my explanation in the link I posted in my last reply. Its obvious to me you haven't even looked at it because the answers to your arguments are in there. I do not believe the outragous suggestion that this was a UFO. A more reasonable (and obvious) explanation is what I am proposing.
When I first watched the start of your vid - I thought " what a load of bollocks" but after seeing that uncanny shape of that storage tank - and the shape of the rip in his trousers - then maybe you could be on to something. He could have decided to take a new dog walking route and come across the "UFO-looking" tank. The shock could have sent him into a mini-stroke or seizure. People who have strokes often report hallucinations "I remember watching a vid where one woman having a stroke reported her hands turned into reptile hands." There is no doubt about the sincerity of the witness - and maybe it did happen as he said - but your theory is very interesting.
The exact same thing happened to a French farmer. Jacques Valee has spoken about it. The exact same thing. In France. Torn trousers. Two "probes" descending from a larger craft and grabbed him by the legs. Waking up afterwards. No water tower there. No barbed wire fences. Nothing.
@@phillfenton Thanks for replying. The markings match Bob’s sketch though… those parallel ladder formations. Unless the artist was exercising a bit of creative freedom and deliberately matched his drawing to the findings. I think in order for your theory to work, Bob would had to have been in an impaired mental state. By all accounts he was a normal bloke and an experienced forest worker. It seems unlikely that a man of normal faculties would’ve freaked out over a water tower in broad daylight. And only hallucinations would explain the spiked balls. I would assume he was familiar with the area too. Wouldn’t he know which side of the road he was on? Wouldn’t he know about buildings and suchlike in the area? It’s quite unbelievable that the investigation never brought up the water tower. Now we’ll never get to hear Bob’s own thoughts on it.
@@petelovatt8357 My belief is he had a mini stroke. This explains a lot. His inability to walk or speak and the confusion he experienced. It may also have affected his memory of where the event happened
@@petelovatt8357 The sketch you referred to wasn't drawn by Bob but a relative based on his description. He admitted in later years that he had embellished the drawing to come up with an explanation for the markings on the ground
@@phillfenton Interesting. It’s quite a unique set of circumstances that would have to come together to make it happen but stranger things have happened I suppose. Appreciate your video 👍
@@phillfenton If he mistook the water tank for a UFO, it still doesn't explain him waking up with his trousers being ripped on both sides. It's an odd one!
This is without doubt the most pathetic version of a classic rock song I have ever heard. Please listen to what you sound like & then listen to the original.
