The purpose of the spacers?

[TazzieRob]

Victorinox have proven with the Swisstools that spacers aren't really needed, no tool clumping, more compact and higher tool density, so why are they employed in the SAKs?

Is it just to provide enough strength due to the brass pins?

Easier to assemble?

Has anyone made a SAK without spacers? A four layer tool could lose the thickness of a whole layer. A Ranger could be the thickness of a Huntsman, which could be the thickness of a Hiker for example. Tool nail nicks may be a bit more of a challenge on some but not that bad.

 

[nate j]

I believe that, as the name implies, the spacers are there to create just a small space (separation) between layers.  This allows a certain tolerance or variance in manufacturing without the tools rubbing on those in adjacent layers.  When that happens (I haven't seen this on a SAK, but have seen it on some traditional slipjoints), there can be a number of negative consequences, including unsightly blade rub marks and difficulty opening and or closing blades.

[Mechanickal]

Also, the pliers pivot extrudes. No way it'll close properly side to side with another tool

[ComboTool]

There are tool combinations that work without spacers. Off the top of my head I can think of the saw and the file in the Locksmith, and the fish scaler of the Swisschamp is next to either the wood saw or the file (can't remember which). 58mm SAKs also don't use spacers between every tool.

[enki_ck]

Tje frame of a Swisstool provides much much more structural integrity than a thin liner in a SAK, those bend with ease. The whole SAK would deform without the liners.

Be sure that Victorinox would loose the liners if they could. Every extra implement adds to the production cost and they'd dump them if they could themselves.

[Don Pablo]

Syph could probably lose the liners, his SAKs have Ti outer liners and steel pivots.

But a stock SAK would most likely collapse like a wet noodle without the inner alum liners.
Honestly, it's a marvel of engineering. Each part of the support is weak and fragile by itself, but put together you get the reasonably robust SAKs that we know and love. 

[kamakiri]

Is it just to provide enough strength due to the brass pins?

From a reverse-engineering perspective, I’d say ‘yes’.  Brass yields and deforms permanently pretty quickly/easily.

Has anyone made a SAK without spacers? A four layer tool could lose the thickness of a whole layer. A Ranger could be the thickness of a Huntsman, which could be the thickness of a Hiker for example. 

Victorinox has only done this sparingly and as far as I know, only for two adjacent layers. Lots of 58mm examples, but usually only employed when two thin layers are siamesed opposite a thicker ‘double wide’ tool like a combo tool or scissors to oppose the shearing and bending. And it only does this at one of the 4 pins for that combined layer.

In 91mm, there’s the wood saw and scaler that are often put together since the Champion ‘c’.

The problems going wider, even with a ‘better’ pin material is that it’ll still bend even if not permanently and tools in the middle will have less snap. Brass would definitely end up bowing and bending losing snap permanently.

Hope that makes sense...haven’t had all my coffee yet!

[TazzieRob]

Thanks for all the replies so far.

The Pioneer gets a thinner spacer than the 91mm, but it appears to definitely be needed to clear the awl due to the asymmetrical grind on the blade.

It'd still be interesting to see a fully stainless 4-5 layer 91mm without spacers just to see what it would look like and how it would function. I reckon most of the main tools would be fine, but the backside tools would be harder to get to.
The outer liner on the blade layer is also bowed to give space for the small blade.

One benefit is they fill out the ends because the tool pivots aren't flush with the end like in the Swisstools, it adds form to the tool. I guess this also aids in protecting the tool pivot and spring, and still allow it to open if spacer bent / damaged from a drop due to the spacer being softer and malleable.

One thing is for sure, the more you look at a SAK and all the small details and intricacies, they really are a marvel of design and function.

[robo]

Syph could probably lose the liners, his SAKs have Ti outer liners and steel pivots.

But a stock SAK would most likely collapse like a wet noodle without the inner alum liners.
Honestly, it's a marvel of engineering. Each part of the support is weak and fragile by itself, but put together you get the reasonably robust SAKs that we know and love. 

I may have seen this guys video. Is it on youtube under RobertJLessard? look up “Custom Titanium SAK With Hidden Scale Drawer”, if you haven’t already.  Looks like a skilled engineer doing mods that seem a cut above.

[TazzieRob]

I may have seen this guys video. Is it on youtube under RobertJLessard? look up “Custom Titanium SAK With Hidden Scale Drawer”, if you haven’t already.  Looks like a skilled engineer doing mods that seem a cut above.

Yes, mate, that's him.

Syph is very well known on here, check out his modding thread here:

https://forum.multitool.org/index.php/topic,34772.msg562670.html#msg562670

[Don Pablo]

 
Syph's thread is a wonderful read. 

[kamakiri]

It'd still be interesting to see a fully stainless 4-5 layer 91mm without spacers just to see what it would look like and how it would function. I reckon most of the main tools would be fine, but the backside tools would be harder to get to.
The outer liner on the blade layer is also bowed to give space for the small blade.

You need at least TWO of the outer liners for the knife to function at all. Otherwise it would just be a lump of parts pinned together. Zero snap, nuthin.

Even at 4 or 5 layers and just the outer liners, it would need to be peened pretty tight to have any snap in the center. I think tight enough to bind the tools even well lubed. Or some other pin material with a higher modulus.

And there would be lots of interference problems. Like the crink of the main blade makes it sit in the liner space. Remove that one and it’ll rub whatever you put in the next layer. Rivets from scissors and pliers would contact many other tools. Newer metal saws have almost no clearance and would scratch anything next to it. Phillips will interfere with anything. CT and Lite modules already need extra spacers.

That said, you could make a Ranger pretty easily and I don’t think there would be issues with access for the backside tools. Better perhaps with older saws. I wouldn’t want to do it myself and I’d keep at least the anodized knife liner and the small blade spacer. Old scissors with a flush screw tip light work okay.

One thing is for sure, the more you look at a SAK and all the small details and intricacies, they really are a marvel of design and function.