Carlston

Your rear ride height looks lower than Swirly's car fitted with the same Eibach R19953 rear springs matching OEM part number 5Q051115S. Swirly182's car with 5Q0511115S rear springs Autodoc lists three springs matching 5Q0511115AA. Bilstein 36-301904, Kilen 63145, Lesjofors 4285746. They are all probably the same spring, just sold under different brands. Unfortunately, none of them lists the specification such as length and wire diameter. However, in the Skoda parts catalogue they are shown as two weight ranges higher than 5Q0511115S. 5Q0511115AA https://www.autodoc.co.uk/car-parts/oem/5q0511115aa?search=OEN 5Q0511115AA Did the mechanic check the condition of the upper and lower underlays for the rear springs? If they are worn, that can cause a loss of rear ride height. Upper underlay for rear spring 5Q0512149A https://www.autodoc.co.uk/topran/16203018 Lower underlay for rear spring 5Q0512297D https://www.autodoc.co.uk/topran/16203019 Your front ride height looks too high. Has someone fitted standard ride height front springs? If so, you might be better off fitting standard ride height rear springs, rather than 5Q0511115AA rear springs. As 5Q0511115S rear springs hasn't raised the rear end much, 5Q0511115AA might not raise it much either. Although 5Q0511115AA will be about 10% stiffer than 5Q0511115S, the uncompressed length of 5Q0511115AA will be shorter than 5Q0511115S so that the unladen ride height of the car will be about the same.

On the Octavia MK3 VRS, 205/50R17 would fit the 6.5Jx17 ET38 5/112 57.1 Kodiaq rims. As you can see in the chart below, these four tyre sizes all have a similar outside diameter. Outside diameter of tyres 205/50R17 636.8mm 225/45R17 634.3mm 225/40R18 637.2mm 225/35R19 640.1mm Alcar 9021 6.5Jx17 ET38 5/112 57.1 steel rim (from Kodiaq) https://www.mytyres.co.uk/rims/details?vehicleId=672860434273997936&rimCode=ALCAR9021 You might also want to look at Skoda's 18" rims. 225/40R18 is the standard tyre size, but 235/40R18 would also fit these rims. The 235/40R18 would give a little more rim protection from pothole and kerbing damage. 235/40R18 isn't approved by ETRTO for fitment to a 7.5J rim, but as you can see in the chart below, ETRTO is being illogical. If a 225/45 can be fitted to a 7J rim and a 245/35 can be fitted to an 8J rim, then it makes sense that a 235/40 should be able to be fitted to a 7.5J rim. One disadvantage of 235/40R18 is that it is a more expensive tyre size than 225/40R18. However, if it saves the rim from pothole or kerbing damage it could be cost effective. Compared to the 225/35R19 tyre size, the 235/40R18 tyre size has an outside diameter 0.8% larger (which is a very small increase that you would hardly notice). ETRTO approved rim widths 225/45 7.0-7.5-8.5 235/40 8.0-8.5-9.5 (An approved rim width of 7.5-8.0-9.0 would make more sense for this tyre size) 245/35 8.0-8.5-9.5 7.5Jx18 ET51 5/112 57.1 alloy rim https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/alu-kola/c/alloyWheels?q=%3ApriceAsc%3AcarType%3AOctavia%2BIII%2B%282017%2B%29%3ArimDiameter%3A18%22&text=#

Over the years, many Superb MK2 owners who weren't happy with the ride comfort on their 17" and 18" wheels, have changed to 16" wheels. There have been many threads on this, and the general consensus is that the 16" wheels transform the ride. Here's an example of 16" tyres and rims. I've listed 205/55R16 91H (winter rated because it has the 3PMSF symbol, so you're allowed to drop the speed rating) and 6Jx16 ET43 rims (from the Karoq. Others, who don't like to deviate from the specifications that Skoda officially approve of would probably choose 205/55R16 91V or 205/55R16 94V XL fitted to 6Jx16 ET50 rims (or 7Jx16 ET45 rims). However, that choice would make the ride a little harder (particularly with the much wider 7J rims), and the 7mm extra offset will make the wheels look rather sunken in the wheelarches. Vredestein Quatrac 6 205/55R16 91H https://www.camskill.co.uk/m139b0s8003p202103/Vredestein_Tyres_All_Season_Car_Vredestein_Quatrac_6_205_55_R16_91H_TL_Fuel_Eff_%3A_C_Wet_Grip%3A_B_NoiseClass%3A_B_Noise%3A_70dB Alcar 6665 6Jx16 ET43 5/112 57.1 steel rims (from Karoq) https://www.mytyres.co.uk/rims/details?vehicleId=1302234084152546416&rimCode=ALCAR6665 Wheel trims for 6Jx16 ET43 Karoq rims 57A071456 Z31 https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/cs_CZ/poklice-borneo-16/p/57A071456++Z31

This fella doesn't seem to be having any trouble winding the piston back

The 2014/11 (ie. 2014 November) edition of the Superb MK2 owner's manual shows that 225/45R17 91V is approved for all models, except for the 3.6 which needs 225/45R17 91W. Skoda owner's manual https://manual.skoda-auto.com/004/en-com/Models

For 2022/23 that link shows £255,545,388.82 which is about the same as the £250,000,000 figure that I mentioned. As you can see below, the total unpaid figure is going up massively year on year. 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Total Unpaid £16,856,923.53 £120,123,660.59 £255,545,388.82

The gknautomotive and kyb spring catalogues both list front spring with OEM part number 6R0411105AK for the Fabia MK2 1.4VRS 180HP. KYB RA4120 matching 6R0411105AK https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/314657661704 The Skoda parts catalogue shows that the front shock absorber for the Fabia MK2 1.4VRS 180HP is 6R0413031AG Skoda parts catalogue https://www.lllparts.co.uk/catalogs/skoda/CZ/FAB/697/4/411/411030 Bilstein B8 35-052180 front shock absorbers https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/304667943672 https://www.autodoc.co.uk/bilstein/1044286

I've seen many old VAG diesels (pre-Euro 6) that show up incorrectly on the TFL database as Euro 6 compliant. It might be because they have previously been registered abroad, although the number of vehicles being incorrectly classified by TFL shows that the system isn't fit for purpose. There must be 10,000's of incorrectly classified vehicles...possibly even more than that. However, with £180/day fines, imagine TFL writing to you in the future saying that they are now fining you £180/day for the past 1,000days because you didn't pay the charge on time. Even with the current much smaller ULEZ area, there's already £250,000,000 owed in unpaid fines. With the area expanding to three times the size of the old area, I can imagine that growing to over £1,000,000,000 in unpaid fines.

The front brake calipers marked FSIII for the 256x22mm front brake discs are made by ATE, so it makes sense to use ATE brake pads especially when they are available for around £25. FSIII front brake calipers for 256x22mm front brake discs (ATE brake system) ATE 13046071172 https://www.autodoc.co.uk/ate/956202?search=ATE Brake pad set (13.0460-7117.2) ATE 13046071172 https://www.amazon.co.uk/ATE-13046071172-Disc-Brake-Shoe/dp/B0038N2JLO/ref=sr_1_1

(2) 6N0412249C Deep groove ball thrust bearing (4) 1K0412331B Suspension strut storage https://www.lllparts.co.uk/catalogs/skoda/CZ/OCT/663/4/411/411000 (11) 3C0513353C Shock absorber upper bearing https://www.lllparts.co.uk/catalogs/skoda/CZ/OCT/663/5/511/511000

At least you have the 17" tyres and not the harder riding 18" tyres. With the 225/45R17 tyre size, 94 is eXtra Load XL which is harder riding than 91 standard load. Y speed rating is harder riding than W speed rating, which is harder riding than V speed rating. So 225/45R17 91V would have been much better for comfort than 225/45R17 94Y XL. Those Hankooks are UHP summer tyres, ie. Ultra High Performance summer tyres. Compared to summer touring tyres, their sidewalls tend to be stiffer which results in a harder ride. Below, is one example of a summer touring tyre that's 91V rather than 94Y. One other thing that would help soften the ride, is to fit the 225/45R17 tyres to a slightly narrower 7J rim rather than the 7.5J rim. Bear in mind that 7.5Jx17 ET49 is the standard 17" rim specification for the Superb MK2, although the standard 18" rim specification does use an ET46 offset...so ET45 is only 1mm different from that. And the 16" rim specification is normally 7Jx16 ET45 (with 6Jx16 ET50 being a winter tyre specification). Michelin Primacy 4+ 225/45R17 91V https://www.camskill.co.uk/m54b0s16p209569/Michelin_Tyres_Car_Michelin_Primacy_4%2B_225_45_R17_91V_TL_Fuel_Eff_%3A_C_Wet_Grip%3A_A_NoiseClass%3A_B_Noise%3A_69dB 7Jx17 ET45 5/112 57.1 alloy rim (from Karoq) https://eshop.skoda-auto.cz/cs_CZ/alu-kolo-ratikon-17-karoq/p/57A071497C+8Z8

Have you check the tyre pressures aren't overinflated? Are they one of these tyres? Hankook Ventus V12 Evo 2 K120 225/45R17 94Y XL Hankook Ventus V12 Evo 2 K120 225/40R18 92Y XL

It was a 60mph speed limit and the OP was only doing an indicated 51mph on the dashcam when the Ferrari hit him. Had the Ferrari not sideswiped the OP, I expect the OP would have got up to about 60mph before moving back onto the left side of the single carriageway, about 5 seconds or 150 yards further up the road. The Ferrari doesn't influence my judgement because had it been a Fabia, my judgement would be the same. On 60mph speed limit single carriageways many drivers do choose to drive at 60mph. However, I can see a yellow sign on a photograph dated March 2023 on google maps steetview near the accident spot that says "New 40mph Speed Limit Proposed Here" so that would indicate that the council aren't happy with drivers doing 60mph along that section of road. Maybe it's an accident blackspot. "New 40mph Speed Limit Proposed Here" sign shown on google maps streetview (photo dated March 2023) https://www.google.com/maps/@51.2409309,-0.5210647,3a,15y,101.98h,83.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s12ZfSmzt1z2_ylHZJ4SImg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

His daily runner probably doesn't have almost 500HP and do 0-60mph in 3.6 seconds. He clearly isn't a skilled driver. Maybe sell the Ferrari and take some basic lessons before even attempting advanced lessons...he certainly needs them. He should have been well away from the van in front so that he could have a good view of the road ahead and plan and execute the manoeuvre correctly. 100% fault with the Ferrari.

If the Ferrari driver was taking his driving test, and had performed that manoeuvre, it would have been an instant failure...even if there had been no contact with the OP. The driving test examiner would have said, "I don't feel safe with you driving" and the test would have been terminated immediately. The Ferrari F430 has 490PS, 196mph, 0-60mph 3.6seconds, etc. High performance cars and low performance drivers don't mix. The problem for any driver only doing 200 miles/year is that they are going to be very rusty and accident prone. It's why insurance companies increase the premiums of drivers who do very low mileage, perhaps less than 3,000-6,000 miles/year.

The law changed many years ago. In the old days, innocent victims of uninsured drivers didn't get paid out. Nowadays, if a driver is uninsured you still get paid out because the UK motor insurance industry was forced to set up a fund to pay out in the case of uninsured drivers. A small percentage of everyone's motor insurance premiums goes into that fund.

As the Ferrari is not taxed, it might not be insured. According to the MOT history, it has only been doing about 200 miles/year since 2019 when the current owner appears to have purchased the vehicle.

Looking at the MOT history, the Ferrari has only been doing about 200 miles each year for the past few years. The last time the V5 was issued for the Ferrari was 28 March 2019, so presumably that was when the current owner purchased the Ferrari. The Ferrari was first registered in 10 April 2008 and has 420g/km CO2 emissions, which puts it in the £695/year road tax bracket.

That's why you should always give plenty of indication before changing lane, so even if you don't see the person you are going to hit at least they will see your intentions and be able to take avoiding action. If it had been a motorcyclist overtaking, the Ferrari driver could have killed him. A 1 year ban and a court order to retake his driving test should be the absolute minimum for the Ferrari driver, and compensation for the victim. The Ferrari driver wouldn't be able to claim that the OP was making a dangerous overtake, because that was exactly what he was trying to do.

What tyres are available can depend on the tyre size. If you've got 16" rims, maybe look at a cheaper non-standard tyre size such as 215/65R16 instead of the standard 215/60R16. My insurance company is quite good about alternative tyre sizes, as long as it doesn't increase the car's performance or is only one size different from standard. The 215/65R16 tyre size complies with both of those two criteria, although only one of the criteria is needed. The Vredestein Quatrac tyre lasts slightly longer than even the long lasting Michelin CrossClimate 2. In one review, 43,000 miles was mentioned for the CrossClimate 2, but an even better 46,000 miles was mentioned for the Quatrac. The Quatrac is also much cheaper than the CrossClimate 2. In cold weather above freezing, the Quatrac has about a 5% improvement in wet grip, than the CrossClimate 2. Although the Quatrac isn't quite as good as the CrossClimate 2 in the snow, they are both in a different league compared to summer tyres. Vredestein Quatrac 215/65R16 98H (Euro label C B 71dB) https://www.camskill.co.uk/m139b0s8008p202133/Vredestein_Tyres_All_Season_Car_Vredestein_Quatrac_6_215_65_R16_98H_TL_Fuel_Eff_%3A_C_Wet_Grip%3A_B_NoiseClass%3A_B_Noise%3A_71dB Vredestein Quatrac 215/65R16 102V XL (Euro label B B 71dB) https://www.camskill.co.uk/m139b0s8008p202132/Vredestein_Tyres_All_Season_Car_Vredestein_Quatrac_6_215_65_R16_102V_XL_TL_Fuel_Eff_%3A_B_Wet_Grip%3A_B_NoiseClass%3A_B_Noise%3A_71dB

As you can see in the Skoda parts catalogue, the OEM part number of the left rear brake caliper on the Octavia MK3 VRS 245HP is 5F0615423. This is a TRW brake system. Octavia MK3 VRS 245HP OEM part number for left rear brake caliper 5F0615423 https://www.lllparts.co.uk/catalogs/skoda/CZ/OCT/805/6/615/615065 On autodoc, TRW BHS1701E is listed against 5F0615423. However, it's not in stock, and it's out of stock most other places as well. TRW BHS1701E is a refurbished, and is shown as being red in colour. Beware that most other brands won't be red, but silver or grey, etc. This is a common problem when you have red brake calipers, as most aftermarket brands seem happy to supply silver or grey colour instead of red. https://www.autodoc.co.uk/car-parts/oem/5f0615423?search=OEN 5F0615423&supplier[0]=833 You can also check the TRW part number on the TRW parts website. https://www.trwaftermarket.com/en/catalogue/ 5F0615423 is a TRW brake system, eg. brake caliper, as shown on autodoc if you search for brake calipers using that OEM part number. Maybe consider a rebuild kit instead, often around £20. The rebuild kit consists of a new piston and various seals, etc. https://www.autodoc.co.uk/autofren-seinsa/10982685 There's plenty of sellers on ebay selling rebuild kits, so there's no need to order from overseas. autodoc is a useful website for finding the make and model of suitable aftermarket parts.

Sometimes replacement wheel bearings get damaged by an incompetent fitter. Then it's just a matter of time before play develops in the bearing and they need to be replaced again. What happens is the fitter applies the force from the bearing press in the wrong place, which causes the ball bearings to dent the ball races. It's easy to check, by taking a wheel off and rotating the bearing by hand that the incompetent fitter has just replaced. Turn the wheel bearing by hand (without the wheel fitted) and if it feels rough to turn by hand (like if the ball bearings are dropping in and out of small dents in the ball races) then the fitter has damaged the wheel bearing when pressing it in with his press (which can apply tonnes of force).

The Octavia MK3 with 312x25mm and 340x30mm front brakes, eg. all VRS models, use the same 85mm front wheel bearings as all models of the Kodiaq (and other Skodas such as Karoq, Octavia MK4, Superb MK3). Considering that the Kodiaq is a much heavier car than the Octavia MK3 and uses much bigger outside diameter tyres, they are the opposite of weak. SKF VKBA 7011 wheel bearing kit (sold to replace 8V0498625A and other OEM part numbers) https://www.autodoc.co.uk/skf/7614660

The below steel rim with an ET33 offset, is used on cars such as the VW Sharan, and VW Tiguan. I once looked up what front wheel bearings these cars used, and they were the same or similar to other VAG cars that used rims with a 5/112 PCD but with more offset such as ET51. Therefore, I doubt you will have problems with front wheel bearing failures by using front rims with an effective offset as low as ET33. Using spacers, changes the effective offset of a rim. For example, using a 10mm spacer with an ET51 rim gives an effective offset of ET41, and using a 15mm spacer with an ET49 rim gives an effective offset of ET34, etc. 6.5Jx16 ET33 5/112 57.1 steel rim https://www.oponeo.pl/felga-stalowa/alcar-kfz-9922#23375120

If you go for the S, maybe go for the Eibach R19953 because that is only sold to replace OEM part number 5Q0511115S and no other OEM part numbers. This means that Eibach R19953 should be an exact match to 5Q0511115S. Bilstein 36-301874, Kilen 63144, and Lesjofors 4285745 are all sold to replace both 5Q0511115S and 5Q0511121AH, so may not be an exact match to 5Q0511115S. If they match 5Q0511121AH you may find that they are slightly longer and/or slightly stiffer than 5Q0511115S. By using a 5Q0511121AH rear spring (if that's what these three springs are), you may find that your rear end no longer looks like it's lowered ride height, but standard ride height, ie. no longer matching the lowered ride height front end. Eibach R19953 rear spring (matches 5Q0511115S) https://www.autodoc.co.uk/eibach/18259209