Modular Pegboard Design

Existing Designs

Separating pegboard connectors from the storage body has been implemented in different ways. A 2015 Maker Club design post described printing connectors and tool holders separately so the connectors could be reused and the body’s print orientation could be adjusted. Read the author’s post

When studying these designs, we look at how they handle the body interface and whether the body can remain in use after changing board types.

How the body interface sets connector positions

This topic starts with two common approaches.

Comparison	Fixed holes	Universal slot
Connector positions on the body	Set by the hole positions	Set by the slot’s range and positioning features
Hole-spacing compatibility for multiple mounting points	Constrained by the hole layout	Depends on slot length, detents, or the adjustment mechanism
Space needed on the body	Can use a small, local interface	Needs room for the slot and assembly
Key checks	Whether the holes align with the mounting points and the connections are reliable	Usable positions, retention, and movement during use

Both approaches can use separate hooks. The comparison focuses on how the body accommodates the connectors and where it allows them to be positioned.

What else is worth studying?

Locking after insertion is also worth comparing separately. PegLock and Pegs, examined in earlier research, can be considered within this broad approach. Their dimensions and compatibility with different boards still need to be checked individually; this does not establish that their parts are interchangeable.

For now, this topic develops the fixed-hole and universal-slot approaches. Pages covering insertion-and-locking designs and other approaches can be added when sufficient information is available.

RONZ Explorations

RONZ wants pegboard accessories to remain useful after changing boards: keep the storage body and replace the connectors to meet each board’s mounting requirements.

The work is currently at the design exploration stage. Here we record our goals, current judgments, and validation plans. The specific structure and its range of use will be established progressively through sample testing.

What counts as keeping the body unchanged?

Our goal is to mount the same physical body on different target boards. Replacing the connectors should not require reprinting the body, moving fixed interfaces on it, or machining it again.

If the body model has to be adjusted and reprinted for every new board, it may still be a modular design, but it has not yet met the reuse goal set out here.

For multiple mounting points, we also need to record which boards provide workable combinations. Hole shape, hole spacing, thickness, and available clearance behind each board should be recorded. Compatibility must be based on actual validation results.

Why focus on a universal slot?

A common slot interface could allow connectors to find positions on the back of the body that match the board’s holes. This makes it worth studying for bodies with multiple mounting points.

We have not yet chosen between fixed positions, multiple detents, and continuous adjustment. We will first compare positional coverage and normal assembly, then decide on positioning and retention features. Small accessories with a single mounting point can still use local interfaces; every body need not have a slot of the same length.

We aim to establish the fit between connectors and bodies progressively, so different accessories can reuse a validated interface.

How should movement during use be assessed?

Our preliminary view is that a small amount of lateral movement may be acceptable, provided it does not hinder access, accumulate into drift, or cause tilting, collisions, or disengagement.

This still needs validation. Observations should cover different directions of tool removal and replacement, and different off-center load positions, rather than just stability while hanging at rest. Support and retention for heavier items also need separate checks.

First-round validation plan

Start with a simple body with multiple mounting points and compare it across measured target boards. Keep the same physical body when changing boards, replace only the board connectors, and record whether it assembles normally. This round tests body reuse; it does not establish a load rating.

Question to test	Keep unchanged	Change	Record
Can the same body move between board types?	The physical body and its interface	The board and corresponding connector combination	Measured board parameters, mounting positions, assembly and removal, and points of interference
Does the body drift sideways during use?	Board, body, connectors, stored item, and starting position	Removal and replacement in a specified direction, and the number of repetitions	Each action and displacement, whether movement accumulates, and whether access is affected
Does an off-center load affect stability?	Board, connectors, body, and the same stored item	The item’s position on the body	Tilting, wobble, interface changes, and interference with nearby items

The first row tests the combined condition of changing boards. Because both the board and its corresponding connectors change, it cannot isolate the effect of any single dimension. The other two rows examine handling actions and off-center load positions separately with a fixed board and assembly.

Before each test, specify the samples, materials, print conditions, item mass and center of gravity, actions, repetitions, and acceptance criteria. Tests involving loads need measures to prevent falling items. Stop and record the test if a sample cracks, shows continuing deformation, or unexpectedly disengages.

Once physical samples and data are available, we will add individual experiment pages under RONZ Explorations in this topic, describing the setup, process, results, and improvements. There is currently no measured RONZ load range ready for publication.