Interview with Ben Grimwade, Founder and CEO, Brightstone Engineering

This interview is with Ben Grimwade, Founder and CEO, Brightstone Engineering.

As the Founder and CEO of a UK-based automotive components manufacturer, how do you introduce your company’s focus today, especially your work on wheel spacers?

I run Brightstone Engineering, a UK-based machining business focused on high-performance automotive parts.

Right now, the focus is very tight. I’m building the business around one core product: CNC-machined wheel spacers for performance and sports cars.

That was a deliberate choice. Wheel spacers sit in an interesting position in the market. They look simple, but the tolerances matter. If they are wrong, you get vibration, poor fitment, and safety concerns. So there is a gap between cheap imported parts and properly machined, hub-centric spacers that fit exactly as they should.

That is where I operate.

All parts are machined in-house from billet aluminum, then finished with anodizing or coating before being assembled and shipped. Because of that, I control the full process from raw material through to final product.

That control matters. It means I can move quickly, keep quality consistent, and build trust with customers who care about how parts are made.

What experiences moved you from engineer to founder and toward focusing on aftermarket fitment solutions like wheel spacers?

I’ve spent years working hands-on with machining, both manual and CNC, so moving into this space felt like a natural step rather than a big jump.

At the same time, I’ve always had an interest in cars, and I kept seeing the same pattern. A lot of aftermarket parts look fine at first glance, but once you measure them or try to fit them properly, the quality just isn’t there.

That stuck with me.

So instead of trying to build something completely new, I focused on parts that already exist but are often done badly. Wheel spacers are a good example. They are simple in concept, but the details matter: centre bore, tolerances, surface finish — if any of those are off, the part is wrong.

That is what pushed me towards fitment-focused products.

From a business point of view, it also made sense. These parts have clear demand, and if you can produce them properly, there is room for strong margins. I can machine them in-house, control the quality, and improve on what is already in the market.

So it became a combination of three things: my background in machining, my interest in cars, and seeing a clear gap where better parts could be made.

That is what led me to start the business and focus on this type of product.

Building on your customer-first approach, what repeatable signal tells you a fitment gap is big enough to justify designing a new spacer?

For me, it starts with repeat demand, not guesswork.

If I see the same question come up again and again — for example, people asking about a specific model, offset issue, or spacer size — that’s the first signal. One-off requests don’t mean much, but repeated fitment problems point to a real gap.

Next, I look at what is already on the market. If the available options are generic, poorly specified, or missing key details like centre bore or proper hub-centric design, that’s usually a good sign the gap is real.

Then, I sanity check it from a production point of view.

• Can I machine it efficiently?
• Can I hold the tolerances properly?
• Does it fit within my current tooling and setups?

If the answer is yes, I move on to margin. The numbers have to work. I want parts where the cost is predictable and the retail price supports a strong margin. If it doesn’t meet that bar, I leave it.

So, the repeatable signal is a combination of three things: repeated customer demand, weak existing solutions, and a part that fits my manufacturing process with good margins.

When all three line up, that’s when I design a new spacer.

Once you’ve spotted the opportunity, what does your UK manufacturing workflow look like from first CAD model to a small-batch production run?

Once I’ve decided to make a part, I keep the process very direct and repeatable.

First, I gather the data. That might come from measuring a hub, scanning a component, or working from known specs like PCD, center bore, and offset. If needed, I’ll reverse engineer an existing setup to get a clear baseline.

Next, I move into CAD. I model the spacer with a focus on fitment first, then manufacturability. Elements such as tool access, clamping, and cycle time are all considered early, because they affect cost immediately.

After that, I go straight to CAM and generate the toolpaths. I usually machine a first prototype on the CNC to validate everything. This step is important. I test the fit on the actual vehicle or hub, check tolerances, and make any adjustments before committing to a batch.

Once the design is locked, I set up for small-batch production. This means dialing in workholding, keeping setups consistent, and running parts in a way that keeps cycle time under control.

Then, the parts move into finishing. This includes deburring, surface preparation, and anodizing or coating, all done in-house.

Finally, I assemble any hardware, carry out a last inspection, and package the parts ready for sale.

It’s a simple flow on purpose: Measure, model, machine, test, then produce. Keeping it tight like that allows me to move quickly while still holding quality where it needs to be.

On the shop floor, which single engineering decision has most improved spacer safety and long-term performance in your testing?

If I had to pick one, it would be getting the hubcentric fit exactly right.

That sounds basic, but it makes the biggest difference.

A lot of spacers rely too much on the bolts to center the wheel. That works to a point, but it puts load in the wrong place and can lead to vibration or uneven stress over time.

So I focus heavily on the center bore and the hub lip.

The spacer has to sit perfectly on the hub, and the wheel has to locate cleanly on the spacer. That means holding very tight tolerances on both features. If either side is even slightly off, you feel it straight away when the car is moving.

I’ve tested spacers where the fit was just a fraction loose, and you get small vibrations that are hard to diagnose. Tighten that fit properly, and the problem disappears.

From a long-term point of view, it also spreads the load correctly. The hub carries the weight, and the bolts just clamp everything together, which is how it should work.

So while there are a lot of details that matter, getting the hubcentric interface right has had the biggest impact on both safety and performance in my testing.

For white-label partners, how do you design your QC and traceability process so they can confidently put their brand on your spacers?

For white-label work, I keep QC and traceability simple, but strict.

First, every spacer design is locked to a defined spec. That includes centre bore, PCD, thickness, and tolerances. I don’t allow variation between batches. If a partner orders the same part again, it is made to the same program, the same tooling setup, and the same checks.

Next, I build QC into the process rather than leaving it to the end.

During machining, I check critical features like centre bore and PCD on the first part, then at set intervals during the run. If anything drifts, I stop and correct it before continuing. That keeps batches consistent rather than relying on final inspection to catch problems.

After machining, every part goes through a visual and dimensional check before finishing. Then, after anodising or coating, I do a final inspection to confirm nothing has moved or been affected.

For traceability, each batch is logged. I record material source, production date, machine program, and finishing run. That way, if there is ever a question, I can trace it back to a specific batch and process.

For partners, this provides two things: first, consistency. They know what they receive will match the last order. Second, accountability. If there is ever an issue, there is a clear record of how the part was made.

That is what gives them the confidence to put their name on the product.

What single change to how you package or document wheel spacers most reduced install errors or returns?

The biggest change was adding a simple, model-specific fitment sheet into every order.

Before that, I relied on the product page to carry the information. That works at the point of sale, but once the part arrives, people just want a quick answer to “Does this go on like this or not?”

So I started including a one-page sheet that covers three things:

• The exact vehicle compatibility.
• The required bolt or stud setup and torque guidance.
• A clear note on hubcentric fitment and how the spacer should sit on the hub.

That alone cut down a lot of confusion.

For example, one common issue was people not cleaning the hub face before installation. That can cause the spacer to sit slightly off, which then feels like a fault with the part. A simple note on the sheet fixed that.

It also helped with returns. Instead of guessing, customers had something in front of them they could follow step by step.

So the change wasn’t complicated; it was just giving the right information at the right time, in the box, where it actually gets used.

How has your educational content about thickness selection, thread engagement, and torque translated into measurable sales or fewer support tickets?

It’s had a direct impact on both sales and support.

Before I put proper content in place, I was getting the same questions over and over. People would ask about spacer thickness, how many turns of thread they needed, or whether a setup was safe. That slows everything down, and it also creates hesitation at the point of purchase.

So, I built that information into the site and product pages.

I explain thickness selection based on the car and the look people want. Then, I show what happens to thread engagement as spacer size increases, with clear examples. I also provide simple torque guidance so people know how to install the parts correctly.

That changed two things.

1. First, conversion improved. People could answer their own questions, so they moved from browsing to buying without needing to message first.

2. Second, support dropped. The basic fitment and safety questions reduced a lot because the answers were already there. The messages I do get now are more specific, which is where I can actually add value.

There’s also a knock-on effect. Better-informed customers make fewer installation mistakes, which means fewer returns and fewer “something doesn’t feel right” messages after fitting.

So, the content doesn’t just help with SEO; it directly improves how the business runs day to day.

Finally, as a UK manufacturer competing with overseas suppliers, what operational change most improved your overall competitiveness without sacrificing quality?

The biggest change was bringing more of the process in-house and tightening the workflow around it.

Early on, it’s tempting to outsource parts of the job—finishing, hardware, even some machining. It looks quicker on paper, but in practice, it adds delays, inconsistency, and less control over the final product.

So, I pulled key steps in-house.

Now, I machine, finish, and assemble everything myself. That means I can control tolerances, keep the finish consistent, and move straight from one step to the next without waiting on suppliers.

That had a big impact.

Lead times dropped, which matters a lot when competing with overseas sellers. At the same time, quality became more consistent because the same process is followed every time.

It also helped reduce costs. Once the workflow is set, I can run small batches efficiently and keep margins where they need to be.

So, the change wasn’t about cutting corners; it was about control. When you control the process, you can compete on speed, quality, and price without compromising any of them.

Thanks for sharing your knowledge and expertise. Is there anything else you'd like to add?

One thing I’ve learned is that simple products are rarely simple to do well.

Wheel spacers are a good example. On paper, they are just a machined ring. In reality, small details like tolerances, surface finish, and correct hardware make a big difference once they are on the car.

That is where most of the gap in the market sits.

A lot of parts are made to a price. That works for some customers, but there is a growing group who care about how a part fits, how it is made, and where it comes from.

That is where UK manufacturing still has an edge. You can move quickly, you can control quality, and you can build trust over time by being consistent.

So my focus is staying disciplined: keep the product range tight, make parts properly, and only expand when there is a clear gap worth filling.

That approach has worked well so far, and it’s what I plan to continue building on.