About the Dual Truss Rods in the 4001's

Tylendal · Post by **Tylendal** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:03 am

An interesting point about truss rods was made to me today by a guitar maker here in Tokyo.

After mentioning my recent purchase of a 1980 Azureglo Rick 4001 on eBay, he asked me several pertinent questions about the condition of the bass in question. One of his main concerns was the condition of the neck. Was it bowed or warped, and if so how much? Which, of course, is a reasonable concern. I tried to alay his fears by mentioning the Rickenbackers Dual-Truss Rod system,

(the guy in question apparently didn't know anything whatsoever about Rickenbackers, but he did work at the Zemaitis[sp] Museum in Kanda, which makes it's own guitars that alot of Famous ppl use, eg, Ron Wood and Keith Richards)

The guy said that(pardon the rough translation from Japanese), to him, Double-Truss Rods sound like a load of rubbish. Mainly because every other guitar in the world only has one truss rod, He said that it sounded like Rickenbacker doesn't have much faith in the stability of their necks to have to put two truss rods in there. Which after hearing this, and thinking it over, it makes a good bit of sense. Why put two in there?

While I can see the benefits, but then again I've always been of the liberal mindset, if one is good, then two is better. So I'm wondering have any of you Rick owners out there had any problems with the necks on your 4001's? Also you don't get to be in business for more than 75 years with a shoddy product.

atomic_punk · Post by **atomic_punk** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:12 am

Shoddy? Hardly. More like "advanced!" Most makers use one because that is the minimum. Hamer uses them too, by the way.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:45 am

Dual truss rods are considerably more expensive to provide which is the main reason more instruments don't have them. We provide them because it's better; not only can you adjust bow but you can adjust twist as well.

Also, in most cases our necks are slimmer and to take advantage of that feature properly, the extra adjustability is quite useful.

As you yourself said "the guy in question apparently didn't know anything whatsoever about Rickenbackers".

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:47 am

Hi Devin, I've been using the 4001/4003/4004 series since 1970, encompassing around 30 basses, usually in combat conditions, with zero neck trouble. I hear others have had problems, but my experience has been all good, and few of the instruments spent much time under the bed.

I would think any manufactured product that allows for flexibility and adjustment shows consideration for the users. It would appear neck issues appear throughout the industry and RIC is one of the few that offers the two truss rod system for a wider choice of adjustment.

It has to cost more and take more time to engineer and build. That is perhaps why so few offer the dual set up.

I believe Alembic also provides the two rod system.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:52 am

One of the many advantages of dual truss rods is that twist can be taken out unlike single truss rod designs and they work half as hard as a single truss rod. You can fine tune the neck with two. Unless the neck is really trashed you can bring it back even if it is severely bowed, takes time sometimes though.
When you adjust the neck of a 4001 you need to take the tension of the strings off the neck before tightening them. you can do this several ways, you need to pull the neck backwards a little bit as you turn the nuts. (do not loosen the strings!) The only people who have trouble with them are people who don't do this. The mid 84 4003's and on are easier to adjust as you don't need to keep the tension off but there are plenty of 4001's out there that adjust and play great, I have three right now and have owned many in my lifetime.

cheyenne · Post by **cheyenne** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:53 am

Dual truss rods make perfect sense to me. Far superior than single rods.

j_gary · Post by **j_gary** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 7:58 am

Doggone it! If I would have spelled better, I could have beat the "Master" with my brilliant truss rod comments.

Proof positive that great minds think alike!

Jeez, I can barely spell truss rod nevermind make or use one.

Tylendal · Post by **Tylendal** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:01 am

See, that's what I had thought too, which is one of the main reasons I bought the 4001 with only a few pictures on ebay to go by. I had tried to defend Rickenbacker, but the way he said what he said made sense to me. But then, when you translate the Japanese to English, you lose a good bit of the 'nuance' that I think he was trying to convey. The guitars made at his shop sell for well over $100,000 USD and I think that working at this place has clearly gone to his head. I don't think he is actually one of the Luthiers at the place, but rather one of the floor staff for the museum, all the same, he had a pretty dim view of anything that wasn't made at his place.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:18 am

The warmoth 8 string neck comes with double Rods and my Dean 10 string bass has double truss rods also ...

I could be wrong on this but it seems to me that the 4003 neck is strong enough that it would hold up with a single truss rod ... whenever I add a 5th string to a 4003 it handles it quite easily with little or no truss rod adjustment ... this leads me to believe that the 4003 neck is a little stronger than it needs to be ...

but my old 1968 4001 needed both of those rods ... that bass was just strong enough to hold 4 roundwound strings ... but that stress made the bass have better resonance than a 4003 ...

jnbass · Post by **jnbass** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 8:28 am

"he had a pretty dim view of anything that wasn't made at his place".

dim sum.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:14 am

Alembics also use dual truss rods and they are among the most expensive basses you can buy. I hate it when someone comes up with the "everyone else does it different so you must be wrong" statement. Besides, ever tried to adjust a Fender Jazz with a twisted neck?

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:33 am

The most stable basses I've owned (by far) have been my:
Steinbergers (graphite necks)
Kubickis (laminate necks)
Rickenbackers.

My Fenders with carbon reinforced necks have bowed and twisted, but my Warmoths have not.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 10:59 am

Alembic must be unsure of their necks too then!

As has been well stated above, with two rods, RIC necks simply have more adjustment options.

henry5 · Post by **henry5** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:52 am

Quote - "Dual truss rods are considerably more expensive to provide which is the main reason more instruments don't have them. We provide them because it's better; not only can you adjust bow but you can adjust twist as well."

I don't doubt you for a minute John, but it's a fact that every high-end custom bass builder (with the exception of Alembic) that I've spoken to (and I've spoken to many on this subject, being a lifelong Rick user) has said two rods are absolutely pointless and are no more efficient than one, causing more problems than they solve. However my favourite basses thus far (and I've played most basses out there from cheapies to unaffordable) are Rickenbacker and Alembic; as we know both use double truss rods. Coincidence? I doubt it....

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:58 am

Pointless, no. It is just a different way of doing things. Further, many high-end builders use carbon fiber rods in addition to their single adjustable rod. I have seen 7 string basses with two adjustable and two static carbon rods.