A Customer Asked Us to Copy a Competitor's Part. We Redesigned It and Cut Cost 40%.
"Make this, exactly." It's a reasonable request — and usually the wrong starting point. When a customer sent a rival's component and asked for an identical copy, we said no to the copy and yes to a redesign that held the same fit and function for substantially less.
The Request
A customer came to us with a competitor's part and a simple instruction: make it, exactly as drawn. The part was a machined housing with a few pockets, some threaded holes, and a row of features on an internal face that nobody would ever see once assembled.
We could have done exactly that. We have the machines. But the quote would have carried the full cost of someone else's design choices — choices made for their supplier, their process, and their render, not for ours.
What We Found in the Drawing
Three things were quietly expensive to machine, and none of them had anything to do with how the part worked:
1. Features that added machine time for no functional reason
Deep pockets and hard-to-reach internal radii meant long tool reach, slow feeds, and small fragile cutters. None of it touched the part's fit or strength — it was detail for its own sake, baked into the geometry.
2. Cosmetic tolerances on hidden faces
Several dimensions on faces that would be buried inside the assembly were held to a tight tolerance anyway. That forces slow finishing passes and inspection on every piece, for a result no one will ever see or measure in service.
3. Material chosen for the catalogue, not the job
The stock was a standard bar size that left a lot of material to remove. A size closer to the finished envelope would have meant less cutting and a shorter cycle.
| Competitor's drawing | Our redesign | What it saved |
|---|---|---|
| Two setups, five operations | One setup, combined ops | Fixture time + tolerance risk |
| Tight tol on hidden faces | ISO 2768-m on those faces | Finishing + inspection time |
| Standard bar, lots of stock | Near-net-shape stock | Machine time per piece |
| R0.5 internal corners | R3 internal corners | Small-tool slow passes |
| Result | Same fit and function, ~40% lower machining cost | |
The Redesign
We didn't change what the part did. We changed how it was made. Four moves:
- Combine operations into one setup. The part could be held so that most features were cut in a single mounting. Every flip is fixture time plus a chance for tolerance to drift, so removing flips removes both costs.
- Relax the hidden-face tolerances to ISO 2768-m. The part fits and seals exactly as before. What disappears is the expensive ritual of holding and measuring dimensions that control nothing.
- Open the internal corner radii. A rotating cutter cannot cut a sharp internal corner. R0.5 means a tiny, slow tool; R3 on the same geometry costs a fraction of the time. Function is unchanged.
- Move to near-net-shape stock. Less material to remove means a shorter cycle on every one of the ten thousand pieces.
The customer got what they actually needed — a part that does the same job — for about 40% less to machine. Copying the competitor would have locked in the competitor's compromises forever.
Copying Isn't Engineering
The cheapest part is the one designed for how it's actually made, not the one photocopied from a rival. A competitor's component is optimised for their constraints, not yours — and machining a copy means paying for all of theirs.
If you're starting from an existing part, the highest-return move is also the only free one: send the drawing to the shop before you freeze it. We lay out the changes that actually move the number in our cost-reduction guide and our CNC design guide. For quick reference, our tolerance chart shows what a general tolerance class actually allows — usually more than a drawing's blanket callout implies.
Redesign & Cost
Should I just copy a competitor's part to save design time?
What redesign changes cut CNC cost the most?
Is it safe to relax tolerances on hidden faces?
How much can design-for-manufacture realistically save?
Send the Drawing — We'll Quote the Redesign
If you have an existing part and a quote that came back higher than expected, send it. We'll tell you what a redesign would change — and quote both the copy and the improved version so you can compare. No charge for the conversation.