Best Place To BuildThis startup is putting India on the global map of advanced manufacturing | Fabheads | BP2B S2 Ep.9
CHAPTERS
- 0:00 – 1:36
Why composite manufacturing needs a breakthrough in automation
Dhinesh opens with the core lesson behind building Fabheads: deep-tech progress comes with repeated setbacks, requiring perseverance paired with flexibility. He frames Fabheads’ mission as reinventing how composite parts are made through a newer, automated process.
- •Progress in hardware comes with constant technical challenges
- •Perseverance matters, but flexibility (not stubbornness) is critical
- •Fabheads is introducing a better automated process to “revolutionize” composite manufacturing
- •Key technical breakthroughs (material + mission-critical machine capability) enabled fundraising
- 1:36 – 2:54
Fabheads explained: carbon fiber and other composites as the next default material
Dhinesh explains what Fabheads does by focusing on high-performance composites such as carbon fiber, Kevlar, and glass fiber. He outlines why these materials are increasingly replacing metals like titanium across aerospace, defense, shipping, and even biomedical applications.
- •Fabheads focuses on composite materials: carbon fiber, Kevlar, glass fiber
- •Composites combine plastic-like feel with steel-like strength plus corrosion resistance
- •Adoption is growing across aerospace, defense, shipping, and mobility
- •Carbon fiber systems are beginning to replace titanium in some implants
- 2:54 – 5:16
Additive vs subtractive: why composites are fundamentally different to manufacture
The conversation contrasts subtractive (machining) and molding/casting methods used for metals/plastics with the unique realities of composites. Dhinesh explains anisotropy (direction-dependent strength) and why traditional approaches don’t translate well to fiber composites.
- •Metals/plastics are largely isotropic; composites are anisotropic
- •Fiber directionality determines strength and performance
- •Machining/casting aren’t ideal for composites due to how fibers carry loads
- •Traditional composite fabrication uses layered sheets + resin + curing
- 5:16 – 7:11
The hidden bottleneck: composite parts are still largely hand-crafted (even at national scale)
Dhinesh describes how large, mission-critical composite structures are still manufactured through labor-intensive hand layup. He highlights examples from wind turbine blades to aircraft and rockets, and connects the bottleneck to a shortage of trained technicians and high rejection rates.
- •Manual layup dominates: layers of fabric + resin applied by hand
- •Wind turbine blades and major aerospace components are hand laid
- •ISRO rockets and LCA Tejas structures involve extensive hand craftsmanship
- •Scaling is constrained by limited skilled technicians and variability
- 7:11 – 8:35
Fabheads’ solution: automated composite additive manufacturing—rare and strategically important
Fabheads positions itself as one of a small number of global players automating composite additive manufacturing. Dhinesh notes that the capability is difficult to import and strategically important for India, making domestic ownership of the tech essential.
- •Fabheads built an automated process to replace manual composite fabrication
- •Only ~7 companies globally have comparable capability
- •Technology is hard/limited to import; India needs indigenous capability
- •Use cases span lightweight, high-performance structures across sectors
- 8:35 – 9:30
What Fabheads delivers today: machines, parts, and a manufacturing-as-a-service model
Dhinesh clarifies that Fabheads has built the machines that perform composite additive manufacturing, and uses them to supply parts rather than primarily selling equipment. He shares their current production envelope and key application areas like drones, ISRO components, and robotics.
- •Fabheads builds the machines and also manufactures end-use parts
- •Primary model is Manufacturing-as-a-Service (MaaS), not machine sales
- •Current capability: parts up to ~1.5 meters
- •Serving drones, ISRO rocket components, automotive/robotics parts
- 9:30 – 10:53
IIT Madras deployment: enabling student access and keeping machines upgraded
The host and Dhinesh discuss Fabheads supplying machines to IIT Madras to drive adoption and learning. Dhinesh explains the partnership terms, including commitments to upgrade to newer generations over time.
- •Fabheads supplied ~30 machines to IIT Madras (not 100)
- •Goal includes technology evangelization and talent ecosystem building
- •Students gain access to composite additive manufacturing tools
- •Agreement includes compulsory upgrades within a five-year window
- 10:53 – 15:42
From ‘3D printing’ to ‘additive manufacturing’: composites were additive long before robots
Dhinesh offers a composites-centric view: composites have long been made layer-by-layer, so “additive” predates modern 3D printing. He uses filament winding as an example of a classic additive process and explains why “3D printing” is just one subset of additive manufacturing.
- •Composites have historically been fabricated additively (layering fibers + resin)
- •Filament winding is a long-standing additive method for pressure vessels
- •3D printing (as popularized in the 1980s) is only one additive technique
- •The term “3D printing” became widespread after key FDM patents expired (~2007)
- 15:42 – 19:24
Why Fabheads took years: cracking materials and machines as ‘two startups in one’
Dhinesh explains the long development cycle: they couldn’t test the machine without the right material form, and couldn’t sell material without a machine. The team first built material-processing capability, then proved the machine’s critical MVP, enabling investor confidence.
- •Deep-tech difficulty: others (including government efforts) attempted and abandoned similar goals
- •Material had to be transformed into a machine-compatible form—non-trivial R&D
- •Material processing took ~2.5 years before machine trials were viable
- •MVP proof combined material + key machine capability to unlock funding
- 19:24 – 23:19
Funding and investor dynamics: why deep-tech hardware finally became investable
The discussion covers how early-stage investors evaluated long timelines and why hardware differs from software investing. Dhinesh explains the role of engineer-industrialist angels, the value of IP/patents, and how market validation after the MVP changed the fundraising story.
- •~4 years to MVP; first funding round (~$0.5M) raised around 2019
- •Early backers were engineer-industrialist angels who understood hardware timelines
- •Hardware iteration cycles are slower/costlier, but patents create defensible moats
- •Pandemic forced survival-mode services; later bridge round enabled market entry
- 23:19 – 28:49
Dhinesh’s origin story: CFIE, hands-on composites, NAL, and ISRO shaping the thesis
Dhinesh traces his motivation back to IIT Madras and early CFIE projects that exposed him to the messiness and manual intensity of composites. Experiences at NAL (LCA Tejas tail work) and ISRO reinforced the same manufacturing pain points—high rejection rates and scarce craftsmanship.
- •Early CFIE project (vacuum blimp) led to first composite fabrication experience
- •Hands-on exposure revealed how manual and error-prone composite fabrication is
- •NAL internship: worked around early LCA Tejas composite structures
- •ISRO role: saw repeated composite usage plus high rejection rates vs metals
- 28:49 – 31:38
Leaving ISRO to start Fabheads: co-founder fit and the case for India owning the tech
Dhinesh describes transitioning out of ISRO with a short prototyping gap and partnering with a co-founder skilled in composites and automation/robotics. The conversation emphasizes national-scale urgency—drones, aerospace, and defense need automation because skilled labor alone can’t scale.
- •~6-month gap after ISRO for at-home prototyping and exploration
- •Co-founder Abhijit (IIT Delhi) worked on major ISRO composite programs
- •Shared motivation: automate composites using robotics/automation mindset
- •India must own core additive-composite tech to meet defense/aerospace/drone demand
- 31:38 – 37:19
The next decade of advanced manufacturing: composites adoption driven by safety + scale
Dhinesh predicts composites will expand rapidly across vehicles, storage cylinders, and biomedical devices due to safety, performance, and regulation. He explains why automation is the key unlock: in composites, additive automation can be faster and cheaper than manual methods, accelerating adoption.
- •Composites improve crash safety (e.g., F1 carbon fiber monocoques) and energy absorption
- •Regulatory and safety trends push adoption (e.g., composite gas cylinders; metal bans in Europe)
- •In metals/plastics, 3D printing is often limited by speed vs casting/sheet processes
- •In composites, automation beats manual workflows—making additive an “obvious choice”
- 37:19 – 41:47
Closing reflections: conviction, flexibility, and IIT Madras as a ‘best place to build’
Dhinesh shares how he manages the emotional load of long hardware cycles through conviction in the thesis and fast-rebounding doubt. He emphasizes staying open to feedback and business-model pivots while keeping the long-term vision intact, ending with gratitude to IIT Madras’ builder ecosystem.
- •Doubt appears but fades quickly due to belief in the product’s necessity
- •Customer feedback reshaped both product direction and business model (machines vs parts)
- •Flexibility in execution mattered when fundraising didn’t match early expectations
- •Final note: IIT Madras/CFIE was the stepping stone into composites and building
