I. Feasibility of Customization
Is it possible to customize or modify these parts? Industry practice shows that the modification and customization of automation components is both possible and common. Such customization becomes a key choice in equipment design when standard bearings fail to meet requirements regarding installation space, load characteristics, rotational precision, or operating environments.
Examples include: limited installation space where standard sizes won’t fit; a single support point bearing combined radial, axial, and overturning loads; retrofitting older equipment (e.g., replacing housings for discontinued models without altering the entire assembly); compact mechanisms requiring thinner cross-sections; or non-standard shaft diameters. Customization options cover inner and outer diameters (OD: 17–350 mm; ID: 3–100 mm), tolerance classes (P4, P5, P6), materials (stainless steel, ceramics, engineering plastic cages), coatings, and sealing structures. Linear guides and other standard parts can also be modified. “Non-standard customization” goes beyond merely adjusting dimensions like diameter or thickness; it involves a holistic optimization of structure, material, precision, internal clearance/preload, lubrication, and sealing based on actual operating conditions. Standard parts serve as the starting point, while customization acts as the bridge between those standards and an optimized machine.
II.
Submitting Requirements
How to submit requirements.
Based on standard industry customization workflows, modification requests should be submitted as follows: **Data**—provide technical drawings or dimensional requirements, load and speed parameters, operating environment, and target quantities (operating conditions must be clearly defined for custom modifications; otherwise, the customization process becomes guesswork); **No Drawings**—send samples for measurement and analysis (reverse engineering) or provide design sketches so engineers can create professional product drawings; **Details**—record precise dimensional tolerances and load performance requirements, select base materials and surface treatments based on the application environment, and share editable 2D or 3D CAD files for engineering review; **DFM**—conduct a Design for Manufacturability (DFM) review before mold creation or production to identify gaps (e.g., undefined thread specifications) and confirm details before metal cutting begins; **Prototyping**—conduct small-batch trial production to verify fit and performance before moving to mass production (e.g., using CMM to verify arc radii, hole position tolerances, and groove spacing)—the success of custom modifications hinges on the clarity of requirements;
the more complete and accurate the operating parameters, the better.
III. Lead Time and Cost
Lead time and cost.
According to industry data, the breakdown for lead times and costs regarding modified custom parts is as follows: Lead Time—Standard parts average 1–3 working days, while modified non-standard parts take 7–14 working days; simple non-standard parts (1–100 units) take 7–10 days, whereas complex parts made from special aerospace-grade materials require 15–30 days; standard parts are available from stock immediately, while custom parts take 2–8 weeks. Cost—Small-batch non-standard customization avoids mold amortization costs but results in a higher unit cost compared to standard parts; complex structures (e.g., high-precision curved surfaces) require additional processes like CNC machining, increasing costs. MOQ—Minimum order quantities for custom parts are flexible (orders of a single unit are accepted), whereas standard parts typically require a minimum of 100 units. Process Limitations—Excessively complex deep-drawn shapes or ultra-thick plates (exceeding 20 mm) may exceed the equipment capabilities of typical manufacturers. Technical Threshold—High-precision non-standard parts (tolerances of ±0.05 mm) demand high equipment precision and skilled workmanship; essentially, modified customization trades lead time and unit price for specific functionality and fit—whether it is worthwhile depends on the performance gained.
IV.
Important Considerations
Key points to consider regarding modification and customization.
Based on industry case studies, here are key considerations for customized modifications: **Structural Matching**—Non-standard customization requires holistic alignment with actual operating conditions (structure, materials, precision, clearance/preload, and lubrication/sealing); simply adjusting dimensions without adjusting supporting elements is a common error. **Unauthorized Supplier Changes**—A secondary supplier changed a mounting hole chamfer from R0.3 to R0.5 without notifying anyone, resulting in mounting bolts shaking loose three months later; any modification made after drawing approval must be communicated and signed off in writing. **Change Management**—Modifications require evaluating three factors: Cost (one-time expenses such as tooling, programming, and re-validation fees), Schedule (extended lead times, potential production halts or rescheduling), and Quality (impact on critical characteristics, and the need for new inspection methods or PPAP resubmission). **Modification Validation**—Validation involves both prototype testing and three-batch mass production verification (e.g., stabilizing flatness within ±0.005 mm and reducing the scrap rate from 16.7% to 0.19%). **Traceability**—Maintain complete archives of communication records, drawing approvals, and change orders;
the two biggest risks in customized modifications are unclear requirements and unauthorized changes made by the factory.
V. When Not to Modify
When modifications should not be made.
Based on industry selection guidelines, avoid custom modifications in the following situations: Standard parts suffice—if standard components meet all functional, precision, and environmental requirements, customization is an unnecessary expense; Low volume—customizing a part that requires new tooling for a run of only one or two units is not cost-effective; validate via 3D printing or CNC machining first; Tight deadlines—if project milestones are rigid, the 7–14 day lead time for customization may be unfeasible; use standard parts as an interim solution; Precision requirements exceed equipment capabilities—tolerances tighter than ±0.05 mm require specialized high-precision manufacturers; Modification strategy—prioritize assembly adjustments (e.g., swapping mounting plates or adding adapter sleeves) over modifying core components, as altering core parts can have a cascading impact on the entire system; Compliance risks—modifying certified models (such as the YE5 series motors) requires an assessment of the impact on certification; remember that customization is a means to an end, not the goal itself—do not pay for customization when standard parts can do the job.
Conclusion
Is it feasible to customize automation components through modification?
The conclusion is yes, provided the process involves needs-based customization, formal documentation and control, and small-batch validation.
Feasibility: When standard parts fail to meet requirements regarding installation space, load characteristics, rotational precision, or operating environments, customization (modifying existing designs) becomes a key option. Modifications can cover dimensions (outer diameters ranging from 17 to 350 mm), tolerances (P4 to P6), materials (stainless steel, ceramic, plastic), coatings, and sealing methods. Process: Submit drawings or samples (including load, speed, operating environment, and target quantity) → DFM (Design for Manufacturability) review → small-batch trial production and validation → mass production. Lead time and cost: Standard parts take 1–3 days; non-standard parts take 7–14 days; complex parts take 15–30 days. Custom parts allow for orders as small as a single unit but entail higher unit costs (though there are no tooling amortization fees). Key considerations: Ensure overall compatibility regarding structure, material, precision, internal clearance, lubrication, and sealing; require written notification of any unauthorized supplier changes (e.g., a case where changing a chamfer from R0.3 to R0.5 caused bolt loosening); evaluate changes based on cost, schedule, and quality; validate through prototyping followed by three stages of mass production.
When not to customize: Avoid customization if standard parts suffice, order volumes are too low, lead times are tight, required precision exceeds equipment capabilities, or there are compliance/certification risks.
In line with industry practice, remember three rules for customization: clarify operating conditions before customizing, execute changes only after written confirmation, and validate via small-batch production before proceeding to mass production.
