view the rest of the comments
3DPrinting
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: !functionalprint@kbin.social or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is ![](URL)
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
That's my thoughts too.
This is just a suggestion, not a knock or anything against the poster. But a solution I think could work is to rotate the hook 90 degrees and have 2 of them, one at each end. Then it would remain flat and balanced no matter where the belts are on the rack.
Not a perfect solution, you wont see or have access to the belts at the back and the mount takes up more space on the rail. But at least you aren't playing a balancing game each time you take a belt.
I think I'd hang the hook off the end, so that the belts are stored in a vertical tree (slightly sloped, so that they don't fall over each other.) But that's an entirely new redesign for something that only really matters if you care about it.