As previously stated, Pocket's thread is great. I also find Super Fast Matt's video on YouTube to be a quick and easy way to explain it.
Most common swaps these days are out of the 2018+ Accord or similar. Most electric cars will run something similar.

I have watched lots of Super Fast Matt's videos. Good stuff. Guess I will look into it more. Sort of an odd shape.
Wonder if there would be clearance issues with out wheel wheels, or strut towers.

Love the idea of not dealing with vacuum lines, but then again, is it more trouble than it is worth on a motor that is going to be NA, and just go to shows.

Spindles not on the site now. Anyone know why? No reply from hawks.

I see them. The homepage shows them, and when you click on it, it takes you to the full page of options, as it always has.

Yeah. I see them on the home page too. Maybe you had an old link that has changed or something.

While the Hawks website has improved dramatically in terms of clarity of options, I still don't know what the difference is between the different bearings offered.
The description says to simply order with the front C6/C7 front bearings, so that is what I plan to do.
Just curious why the other bearings are options and what the tradeoffs are.

I still plan to order just the spindles and bearings, and then order huge front calipers from Willwood, simply so I can have matching rear calipers that include electronic E-brake.

Exciting to see our cars having new products designed for them.

Yep, that's what I get for using the links on this thread, . Thanks.

Funny stuff, Love the cam kit they have.

Nope

Yep, I found it, thanks. Somehow the page opened to the very bottom and i click on the last pic. More

That whole new setup seems really slick, especially for it being a bolt on kit. I can't wait to start seeing install pics

The only reason for the different options of wheel bearings is for availability. When we released these kits the Front C7 Bearings became out of stock everywhere so we needed to have other options available.

Thanks for your feedback! I'm discussing the changes with the shop helping us produce these. We are told according to the CAD models there should be no changes to geometry aside from the shorter steering arms.
This seems to not be the case and I'm looking into that. I did notice the ride height difference on my car when I installed the spindles and when I mentioned this I was told there were no changes that would effect this.

I'm glad to know I'm not losing my mind lol.

I am also running Koni's and did not need to open them up any for install. They were snug but it was nothing a tap with a mallet couldn't get lined up.
I have the ProForged Tie Rods and Adjuster on my car.

Yeah, the lack of camber is a bummer.

I noticed the passenger side was a tighter fit than the driver side.

Look at my pics higher up and you can see the axle center lines and strut mounts are both much higher. At full droop the strut now hits the spring pocket where there used to be a small gap. That could be due to the extra droop or the strut mount being in a different spot.

The car didn't handle bad even with the lack of camber, but it would be so much better with all the camber.

Are you guys using the Proforged outer tie rods and adjusters that are listed for our cars on their website?
Or are you using something else. I remember reading that longer units of each were needed.

For my set-up I would really desire some built in drop from the spindles, so please update us with what you find. Got any idea about how much lower you are? 0-1"? 1-2"? Also, about how much higher is the strut mount?

Thanks

I'll post thes pics again as they're a page back now.




I'm not sure how much the spindles lowered my car as my jack was stuck under the car and I started dialing up the weight jacks before measuring.

Also, to close the loop on my issue with the rotor touching the caliper bracket... there's just enough 'slop' in the bolt holes on the C5/C6 adapter that if you run the bolts down the caliper bracket can go on crooked. So to install correctly keep the adapter bolts loose, pull the adapter outboard as you snug up the bolts. It's just that little extra room needed to center the caliper bracket.


When I assembled them on my workbench gravity pulled them the wrong way.

in the second picture, the centerline of the axle looks further back in relation to the ball joint centerline on the hawks vs stock. I'm assuming that's the position it's in the pic? It looks like it lowers the car a solid inch.

not trying to nitpick. Just info gathering. These seem like an awesome idea.

It doesn't look like the axle centerline was moved back compared to the ball joint. Maybe its the angle of the pic.

I don't understand your explanation about the slop and rotor hitting. Could you add more detail? I am not sure what you mean about gravity pulled them down the wrong way. I think I am especially stuck on understanding what is "crooked".

Your early adopter insights will be invaluable for people purchasing in the future (Like me).
If these become as popular as I think they will be, there should be a sticky on the forum eventually detailing any issues, or what changes when swapping over. (Ride height, alignment limits, total shock travel, etc)

Finally getting some answers back from the manufacturer on the ride height. We compared the CAD model of these new spindles to the CAD model of the previous 1LE spindle we offer and it does lower the axle centerline about .895".
I'm not sure how this was missed, maybe in the communication of possibly doing a standard AND a drop spindle version of this part but what we ended up with this round is the "1 inch drop" version..
That was NOT supposed to be the case. We were expecting to receive a stock ride height spindle originally.
I did test fit these on my personal car (the black RS shown above) and noticed the car seemed to sit lower but when going over this with the manufacturer we were assured the dimensions were all the same in regards to this issue.
As soon as I have more information on if a "stock height" is still planned I'll update you all.

As far as the camber difference. I am still waiting on an answer for this and will continue to update you guys with what I find.

I say all this to be as transparent as possible. I will be working on getting the online descriptions updated to reflect this as best as I can.

For those interested in the comparison here is a screenshot of the two different parts and the axle centerlines of each.

Fantastic update. Thanks for the transparency.
Think a lot of people will welcome the slight drop.
(mechanical engineer here)
Looks like the CAD models are mated via concentric mate and a planar mate to the ball joint. Nice.
Do you (or anyone else) have any concerns about the tie rod attachment being at a different angle? I know it is shorter.

Need to say it again. Thank you for the clear update and keeping us in the loop.

I, for one, welcome the drop. It's moderate, so it should play well with stock springs and drop springs/weight jacks.

And what about the higher mounting point on the strut? Whats up with that?

The bolts with the red dots hold the adapter to the spindle. The holes are oversized a hair, no more than you would expect in a typical bolt and hole assembly. Unfortunately, there's just enough room to let the caliper carrier touch the rotor where circled.

I said gravity pulled it down because in this pic the apindle is laying on its back with the studs facing up. This pulled the adapter down. The fix is to lift the adapter as you tighten the bolts or if you're doing it on the car, pull the adapter outward.

Crooked... the adapter can get bolted on skewed, in this pic one side up and the other down.

you could also put a thin shim (washer) between the caliper and the adapter at the bolt mounting location between them to space it further out and center it... that is typically how willwood kits are actually set up to make sure in the end the caliper is centered on the rotor

This was a great explanation to what you were describing before. Thank you for the clarification.

Having ghosted this thread for the past couple of months. Was super excited to learn of the actual product that was coming out. Almost couldn't believe they were bringing out a part that solved so many of the original spindles problems. Had my finger on the buy button a number of times, but never committed. Now my car is not a street car, nor is it a high dollar specific race car only. AutoX, Rally Cross, low buck endurance racing, fun cheap stuff. Invested a lot of time in optimizing the existing platform with some aftermarket upgrades that we can fit into the the racing we do. The spindles ( and bearings ) have always been a weak link.

3rd Gen front suspension IMO

Roll centers already below ground, Lowering the car with stock geometry makes it worse Lowered spindle BIG plus
Bearing wear. We bring to the race and change the front bearings every weekend, C7 bearing set Dream Come True
Shorter tie rod arm. Clears my rims better with bump steer kit Will make my Turn One 10/1 steering box even faster
Loss of Camber. Unacceptable These cars have zero camber gain to begin with. Having spent numerous hours getting as much camber as possible out of this suspension. ( increased the slots and strut hole in the towers, notched the strut mount on the master cylinder side , and few other things ) I refuse to give up as much Camber that has been referenced in this thread. A quick read of any of the race suspension threads on this forum will give you how important this setting is.

I applaud the transparency of Hawks to admit to the spindle height difference. I am begging them to fully disclose the actual geometry of this new spindle. I still want to purchase this part and know of at least 3 or 4 other who do. Its got to be on a cad drawing somewhere. Modifying a suspension is always full of compromises . You take what parts you can get, make, buy and make the best educated choices. I just can't make myself go from 6.5 degrees of camber to the suggested in thread of 1.5 degrees

Yup, I have their 10:1 steering box also. Less than 2 turns lock to lock... or tire rub to tire rub!

Maybe this will help with camber issues? Found on Facebook marketplace...

Um -6.5 camber?
I hope that's a typo ha ha.
Realistically around - 3.5 is the ideal number based on my testing.
Pic is a old A052 at -3.5, damn near perfect wear.
1/32in tread across the whole tire.
Same goes for the Hoosier A7s and re71rs I've run.

​​​​​​.

Anyone know what the "stock" alignment setting are?
I am guessing the discussion going on about max limits only really applies to tracked cars, correct?

Daily:
-0.5 camber
+5 caster
0.2 degrees toe in.


Hard street:
-1.0 camber.
+5 caster.
0.1 deg or zero toe.


Hard street + some racing:
-1.5 camber
+6 castor
0.1 degree toe in or zero toe.



All out ***** to the wall racing.
-3.5 camber or more.
+6 castor or more.
High speed tracks: Zero toe.
Short tracks or autocross: 0.1 or 0.2 deg toe Out.(0.2 deg TOTAL Toe Out)

Note: Different suspension setups and tires will change the required camber settings.
For example: A race tire with soft side walls will need more negative camber than a tire with stiff side walls.

Not a typo but does require some needed clarification

6.5 degrees is the maximum we can now get on the front. Not that we run it that way all the time. In fact the only time we used that setting was on a borrowed set of rally tires and steel rims. We were told to go for max on all the settings and that's what we did. Although this was set up with an old set of sprint car plates in a dirt pit spot. So no claim to accuracy Took the the short springs out and dropped in a set of soft stock height springs of unknown rating. ( probably stock springs I had sitting around ) Adjusted the spring jacks up for about 3" more travel. Also put the A arm mounted suspension stop back on. Have been depending on the strut Koni soft stop on the strut. Had a total blast for the day. If we did that more would make some changes or fab some stuff for that kind of fun.

For our Road Race set up we generally run 4.5 degrees of camber, with all the caster we can get. Depending on which track we are running ( shorter, tighter turns , or long high speed sweepers ) The only reason we decided on that number for caster was some very low tech skid pad testing we did with a borrowed Garmin data system and a free few hours on a skid pad/ drift area. We really didn't look at tire wear. But we did check temps on hot tires on five locations across the tire . The best G force readings we got was at the +- 4.5 degrees camber ( 100' skid pad circle ) Although those are some nice tire wear pics McLovin ! We have also discovered that track conditions , pavement conditions, temperature, all gang up to destroy your race tires no matter what you do. We are not against rotating the front to the backs after a 10 hour track Saturday for Sunday laps. We just want the tires to last the weekend.

Camber Adjustment Bench ? Does anyone have experience with this ? Does anyone else think you would just be bending the strut tube ?

I'm assuming you have a longer that stock a-arm?​​​​​​​-6.5 just isn't possible otherwise. ​​​​​​​at -4.0 the strut shaft touches the tower opening. ​​​​​​​and is about 1/2in away from the inner fender hump.​​​​​​​

Interesting, I feel my eyeball calipers have been validated

Personally, I'd prefer the current drop spindle design over a stock height version. Stock height may not even be feasible if the hub flange drops below the BJ pad plane. Such is life when updating old designs

Someone posted the following on one of the 3rd gen facebook pages.
Can anyone counter if any is true or not.
Would be nice to stop any bad rumors in their tracks.

-------------------
to be honest, those spindles have some major flaws.
for street cars you'd likely never notice, but.
1. they limit camber by a lot, about 1/2 the factory spindle making camber beyond -1.5 unlikely. race 3rd gens usually run -3.0 to -3.5
2. they have a 1in ish drop (that's fine), BUT it also pushes the wheel center towards the front of the car. the drop is fine, but try to stuff 315s with a more foreword wheel center is an issue.
3. the changed steering arm is likely to cause havoc on bump steer. but also speed up fast boxes to something unreliably fast. 10:1 or 8:1 boxes would likely not be drivable with 1/3 turn to full lock.
4. the mounting of the hub is the biggest issue. because the bearing hub isnt supported inside the spindle, it's likely to snap those 3 bolts off of any large load were put on it. like some 1.3-1.4G turns at a fast rack
the hubs are spaced out from the spindle with a 6061 spacer. but that spacer isn't indexed. so that hub is gonna move around and eventually go to SNAP city.
5. no provisions to run the ABS wires so us ABS users would have to drill holes somewhere to feed wires through.
6. the spindle itself is SUPER heavy, not really a bad thing from a strength aspect, but unsprung weight is bad.
that spindle is a cool idea. But it seems like the engineering behind it is rather flawed.
I sent some pics to a Formula1 engineer and he agreed with the issues I mentioned above.
for a street car, you'll likely never have issues on anything I mentioned.
but for us Autocross and road race guys, it's a hard no.

A couple question:
2. Doesn't it look like the wheel would get pushed backwards, not forwards?
4. This is my largest concern. If no spacer is used does the bearing sit inside the hub and load transfer thru more than just the bolts? Or by design is there a gap?

I can chime in on a few

1) I wonder if offset strut to spindle bolts would help there. OTOH, the more the angle is corrected, the less tire can be stuffed under before hitting the strut
2) The wheel would move rearward slightly
Assuming the hub CL moves along the 5* caster common to 3rd gens, it's .078". Barely anything
3) F/R movement on the steering arm affects steering ratio and ackermann/anti angles. The shorter arm will make a slow turning factory box act like a faster ratio and hit the turning stop on the control arms before the boxes internal stops hit. A quick ratio box will become pretty twitchy at speed being even more quick ratio'd. This is a benefit for rack conversions because the spindle doesn't need as much as much linear travel at the arm. I haven't found a R&P to match the stock 3rd gen's 7.1" of steering travel
Someone like Dean will need to explain how that movement will affect ackermann and what conditions/purposes it suits
Up/Dn movement affects bump steer. The up/dn position seems to be basically the same as stock, but should be checked regardless since the frt is lowered from the hub placement. Standard bump steer tie rod kits should still work
4) That would require a FEA report supported by real world destructive testing. Being aftermarket parts, it's highly unlikely to happen at the price point for these spindles
I wonder if Seth would instead do a stress analysis on whatever CAD program he's using and share the force numbers/FOS. Should only take a few minutes on the computer vs the above
5) Target market. There's only a handful of owners that would ever need that. If a few minutes with a drill will do the job, I'd say close enough and move on
6) No input

As someone who has over 20 autocross runs with 295 and 315 Yok A052s here are my thoughts:
1) Yeah, loss of camber sucks big time. As pocket mentioned a 'crash bolt' would help get some camber back. I haven't mentioned this before, I replaced the lower strut 16mm bolt with a 14mm to tip the spindle in more. I went from -1.5 to -2.4, so it helped but not perfect... and yes, I understand I'm playing with fire. I torque both strut bolts to the recommended torque on a torque chart, not the service manual. 16mm bolts to 200 ft lb and the 14mm to 150ish... factory calls for a max of 150ish (technically a given torque plus a few degrees but not to exceed 150). This takes away some tire to strut clearance but I gained some clearance with these spindle anyway so I'm still no closer to the strut. I went with the C5 brakes and Xtracker hubs. The amount of 'dynamic' camber I had with my old spindles was shocking, maybe these spindles are stiffer so we don't need as much camber (that would be nice).

2) If you're running any tire wider than a 245 they're probably going to rub anyway (my OE tire size did). I limited my steering by increasing the steering stops on the factory control arms to keep from REALLY bashing the tires into the frame and fenders. I haven't notice any more rubbing with these spindles, but it could be a hair more... I'm not that worried about it.

3) Bump steer is no worse than factory, I measured both spindles but don't have my numbers with me. As stated earlier I have a 10:1 steering box, so yes this is quicker, but by no means is it hard to get used to. I'm less than 2 turns from tire rub to tire rub (it would be more with factory tire size and steering stops), 1/3 of a turn mentioned above is a gross exaggeration.

4) The hub isn't a press fit, but neither are any of the other wheel hubs I've changed so far. Yeah, they all get rusted in place and are torture to remove but the new ones go right in and can spin in the bore. In this case, the extra hub spacer could put more leverage on the bolts and I wondered why a new custom part would need that spacer, I'm assuming they're different thicknesses based on which brakes you go with, correct me if I'm wrong. Either way, solostorm records my max lateral G as 1.5+. Yes that's a peak number and not sustained for very long, most turns I'm up over 1.3G. If the bolts are going to go south they should be stretching by now. I haven't retorqued them yet but figured it would be about time to check. I'll do that this week and report back.

5) ABS... these cars never came with ABS and the few retrofit cars out there with it can figure out how to run a wire. My initial thought was to put a notch in the spacer or face of the spindle to let the pig tail hang out, another option is to de-pin the connector and run the wires through a small hole in the back of the spindle then re-attach the connector.

6) I didn't think of weighing a spindle an hub together (or separate for that matter), but all this stuff is heavy. While driving the car at the limit, it doesn't feel like the steering is heavy or the car is slow to respond to inputs.

Overall I have to say the spindles are working well and the car feels more nimble.

Does anyone else have more autocross experience with these than me? Honest question!

The FB post was me.
#2 is the opposite as the new spindle moves the wheel center Aft not foreward.
But the point is the seems like really lazy engineering. The fact that Hawks didn't know that the wheel center was moved to such an extent.
I kind of tells me that they either outsourced the design of the spindle to someone else, or was using an incomplete spindle design. Then just sent it to full production.

But I'd say the Hub mount mechanism is by far the largest issue.
I made a quick 3d model to explain the issues here.
The specs are exaggerated to make it more clear.
But without having the bolts indexed you're putting a massive amount of strain on them with that spacer setup.
That means that Hub can move in up and down on its own. Putting massive stress on just 3 bolts.
will a street car on factory tires ever have a problem? Most likely not.
Maybe if you do the casual autocross on big tires yeah you could probably get away with it.
You pull 1.6 g's in a banked turn at the track, then all of a sudden you have a wheel flying off.

just my 2 cents.
A formula 1 engineer that I know 3D scanned the original spindle and plans on making his own Billet spindle.
I'm excited to see what he comes up with.

Pic didn't attach on last post-

Does anyone know the difference in the brackets for the 3 C6 options? I have J57 brakes I would want to mount up to these and I don't know which bracket option to chose, but I am thinking the Z06?

hey buddy.

Pretty sure you are correct, those are the 6npot calipers right?