Best Place To BuildThis startup is putting India on the global map of advanced manufacturing | Fabheads | BP2B S2 Ep.9
CHAPTERS
IIT Madras setting & why Fabheads matters now
Host Amrit introduces the show from IIT Madras and frames Fabheads as a recent breakout deep-tech manufacturing story. Dhinesh is introduced as founder/CEO, with the conversation aimed at demystifying additive manufacturing in composites and what it takes to build hard tech in India.
- •Recorded at IIT Madras (CFI/innovation ecosystem context)
- •Fabheads founded in 2016; funding/news traction around 2025
- •Focus on advanced manufacturing, not software-style iteration cycles
- •Set-up for a deep dive into composites + additive manufacturing
What Fabheads builds: automated manufacturing for composite parts
Dhinesh explains Fabheads’ core focus: making high-performance composite components (carbon fiber, Kevlar, glass fiber) using a more automated process. The problem is that today’s composite fabrication is still heavily manual despite composites becoming the default material for high-performance applications.
- •Composite materials: plastic-like feel with steel-like strength, corrosion resistance
- •Use cases: aerospace, defense, shipping, turbines, mobility, implants
- •Current fabrication is labor-intensive, manual layup + curing
- •Fabheads’ goal: automate composite part fabrication to improve speed, consistency, scalability
Additive vs subtractive: why composites are different (anisotropy & fiber direction)
The discussion contrasts subtractive/reductive manufacturing (machining, milling, lathe) with additive approaches. Dhinesh explains why composite parts can’t be treated like isotropic metals/plastics: fiber directionality (anisotropy) determines strength, so manufacturing must precisely place fibers.
- •Subtractive/reductive processes dominate metal/plastic part-making
- •Composites are anisotropic: properties depend on fiber orientation
- •Traditional methods use fabric sheets layered with resin, then cured
- •Directionally placing fibers is the central manufacturing challenge
The hidden reality: aircraft, wind blades, rockets—still handcrafted composites
Dhinesh highlights how surprisingly manual composite manufacturing remains even for world-class products. From Boeing structures to wind turbine blades to ISRO rockets and LCA Tejas, large composite structures often rely on technicians laying up fibers by hand, creating scaling and quality constraints.
- •Large structures (wings, 60–70m turbine blades) are hand-laid by teams
- •ISRO rockets and LCA Tejas composite structures rely on manual processes
- •India faces a shortage of trained composite technicians
- •Manual processes drive higher rejection rates and inconsistent quality
Fabheads’ approach & positioning: one of a handful globally
Fabheads has developed an automated composite additive manufacturing capability and claims to be among only a small number of companies worldwide doing this at high capability levels. Dhinesh emphasizes strategic importance: some advanced manufacturing tech can’t simply be imported, making indigenous capability critical.
- •Automated composite additive manufacturing as the differentiator
- •“Only ~7 companies globally” positioned as comparable capability set
- •Certain technologies are difficult/limited to import; need domestic ownership
- •Automation as the path to scale defense/aerospace composite production
What they deliver today: machines, but mainly Manufacturing-as-a-Service (MaaS)
Rather than selling machines broadly, Fabheads mostly runs a manufacturing-as-a-service model—building parts for customers in its own facilities. They selectively place machines in academia (including IIT Madras) to evangelize the technology and grow a talent and user ecosystem.
- •Current capacity: parts up to ~1.5 meters
- •Primary applications: drones, ISRO rocket components, automotive/robotics parts
- •Business model: MaaS (Fabheads operates factories, supplies parts)
- •Academic deployments: ~30 machines at IIT Madras + planned upgrades over time
From “3D printing” to “additive manufacturing”: a composites-first perspective
Dhinesh argues composites have been “additive” since the 1920s because traditional layup is inherently layer-by-layer. The conversation reframes 3D printing as only one subset of additive manufacturing and uses filament winding (pressure vessels/CNG tanks) as a classic composite additive process.
- •Composites historically built layer-by-layer → inherently additive
- •Filament winding explained via a “lathe-like” additive analogy
- •3D printing popularized as a catchy term; additive is broader umbrella
- •Post-2007 open-source boom after FDM patents lapsed accelerated ‘3D printing’ culture
Why it took years: building both the material and the machine (two startups in one)
Dhinesh explains the long R&D runway: the machine required a new form of material feedstock that didn’t exist off-the-shelf, so the team had to invent material processing first, then the machine. With a tiny team and heavy iteration costs, reaching an MVP took about four years.
- •Material processing needed before machine trials were even possible
- •Material processing alone took ~2.5 years; MVP overall ~4 years
- •Early team was extremely small (founders + interns), building/printing many parts
- •Strategy: demonstrate critical tech + material readiness to unlock investor confidence
Funding reality for deep tech: convincing engineers, surviving the pandemic
The first meaningful investment came from angels with industrial/hardware context, who could accept multi-year timelines unlike typical software investors. COVID forced a survival phase with services/consulting, followed by a bridge round and then market entry only in the last ~2.5 years.
- •Early raise (~2019) after MVP; investors were industrialists/engineers
- •Deep tech timelines: iteration is costly and slow but creates defensible IP
- •Pandemic period shifted focus to survival via services and small work
- •Market traction began only ~2.5 years ago, enabling later-stage fundraising
Founder journey: IIT Madras composites roots → NAL → ISRO → startup leap
Dhinesh traces his path: early hands-on work at CFI building a “vacuum blimp” introduced him to composites’ manual pain. Exposure deepened at NAL during LCA Tejas work and later at ISRO, where he repeatedly saw quality/rejection and scaling issues—ultimately motivating Fabheads.
- •CFI/FRP bay experience: learning composites by doing, seeing manual intensity
- •NAL internship: fighter aircraft carbon fiber layup exposure
- •ISRO work: repeated composite usage + manufacturing reliability problems
- •Decision to leave: ~6 months prototyping at home before starting up; co-founder from IIT Delhi/ISRO composites + automation background
Why India must own additive composite tech: scale, reliability, and defense needs
The conversation emphasizes national capability: India’s drone mission, aerospace, and defense ambitions require scalable composite manufacturing beyond artisan-level craftsmanship. Automation is positioned as essential for meeting demand, reducing rejection, and building strategic independence.
- •Shortage of skilled technicians blocks production scale-up
- •Manual processes have higher rejection vs metals/plastics manufacturing norms
- •Defense/aerospace/drones need repeatability and throughput
- •Owning the tech reduces reliance on constrained imports and external suppliers
What $10M enables: scaling from R&D to a full production factory
Dhinesh shares details of the new funding round and how it will be deployed. The core spend is on creating a larger-scale manufacturing facility in Bangalore, moving beyond a small Chennai R&D/mini-production setup into industrialized output.
- •~$10M raised from Accel and Trifecta Capital
- •Capital primarily allocated to a new Bangalore factory (~2-acre site)
- •Transition from small Chennai facility to first large-scale production
- •Focus on expanding capacity and operationalizing manufacturing at scale
Future of advanced manufacturing: composites adoption driven by safety + efficiency
Dhinesh predicts composites will expand rapidly across sectors because of lightweighting, corrosion resistance, and safety benefits. Examples include F1 crash safety, evolving vehicle safety standards, and the shift away from metal cylinders in Europe—trends likely to spread as manufacturing becomes automated and cheaper.
- •Composites as “ultimate material” for many performance/safety needs
- •Safety examples: F1 energy absorption; stricter vehicle impact requirements
- •Regulatory trends: glass fiber cylinders favored over metal in some regions
- •Main bottleneck is automation/cost—Fabheads aims to unlock mass adoption
Why additive wins in composites: speed vs legacy manual processes + new applications
The host contrasts metal/plastic additive’s common drawback—speed—against composites, where the baseline is slow manual labor. Dhinesh argues automation in composites can be faster and more economical than incumbent processes, enabling expansion into areas like customized biomedical implants.
- •In metals/plastics, additive competes with fast casting/sheet metal/injection molding
- •In composites, incumbent process is manual → automation can be a net speedup
- •Automated composite additive enables repeatable, programmable manufacturing
- •Emerging applications: patient-specific implants; carbon fiber bonding advantages vs titanium
Builder mindset: perseverance with flexibility + closing reflections
Dhinesh closes on the personal side of building hard tech: perseverance matters, but so does adapting strategy (including business model shifts) based on market feedback and funding realities. The episode ends with reflections on IIT Madras as a formative “best place to build” environment and a final call to learn more about Fabheads.
- •Perseverance is essential, but avoid stubbornness—iterate approach
- •Strong conviction in thesis; thoughts of quitting exist but pass quickly
- •Flexibility: shifted from selling machines to MaaS; incorporated customer feedback
- •IIT Madras/CFi experience as a foundational launchpad; episode wrap-up
