The dreaded tail lift

bassbob · Post by **bassbob** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:49 am

I used Danes bridge tilt fix, worked fantastically, thanks Dane.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:18 pm

Drill the two spots in the tailpiece where the bridge heighth adjustment screws make contact all the way through to the body and into the body 1/4". Replace the adjustment screws with longer ones. Problem solved.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:21 pm

I've discovered that the bridge assembly, or perhaps the height screws, is most likely at fault here. I switched bridge assemblies from one bass to another & the tilt followed, where it was never a problem before.

I'm still not drillin' any holes, though!

bassbob · Post by **bassbob** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:52 pm

The holes are very small, and very invisible, will not affect your basses' value, and will keep your bridge right. In fact, mine plays better than it ever has, action wise.

kcole4001 · Post by **kcole4001** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 12:58 pm

The only one I'd consider drilling, a mid 1970's 4001, is already wearing a Hipshot.
The other two, a 4000 & a 4080, aren't getting drilled.

"Not gonna do it..."

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 1:11 pm

I guess I'm in the minority here. I've never had a problem with tail lift on my Ricks. The C64 has some slight lift, but nowhere near enough to concern me. The 4003 and V63 have none at all, and I don't remember my old '77 4001 having much either. I consider that a good thing.

rickenbrother · Post by **rickenbrother** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 2:35 pm

I'm with you Randy. I've never had a problem with tail lift on my Ricks. All of my 4001/4003 basses have a slight amount of tail lift with the exception of my 4003S/5 having the 2 extra screws at the heel of the tailpiece. I've never found this slight tail lift to be a problem with the playability and sound of these basses.
Remember that RIC had a solution by adding the extra screws in the tailpiece, problem solved...then people whined about how it looked...and the screws went away.
I remember many years ago being concerned about seeing the slight tail lift on my '79 4001. That slight lift never got any worse, never became a problem and that 4001 continues to be an awesome sounding player.
It's not a big deal, give it a rest already!

bassbob · Post by **bassbob** » Tue Apr 10, 2007 11:34 pm

Kevin you might have to live with the bridge tilt problem then. For the record, when I had the original bridge on, and no holes were drilled, I did not have this tilt problem, but the action was higher. Maybe you should take your bridge off and finish drilling the holes ( which came only partially drilled on my new Ric bridge) this may solve your problem without drilling holes in the wood.

jps · Post by **jps** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 3:02 am

I have quite a bit of lift on my '73 4001 which was already there when I bought it in early '03. I will post a pic later tonight, but it is 1/8" at the end and goes way back into the tailpiece. It has not gotten worse since I got the bass, but there is not much of a witness point at the saddles, plus the bridge tilts back, but that actually helps in getting the intonation correct. IfI had the bridge upright, then the tailpiece would have to be moved back on the body to compensate. I, for one, am eagerly waiting on the new design from RIC.

simer4001 · Post by **simer4001** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 6:45 am

I have mixed feelings about this. My 4001V63 has a slight lift, however, my 4001C64 has, in my own words, a significant lift. To my ears it doesn't appear to have made any difference. But, I also look at it this way. Both of these basses were and are reissue basses. I love the vintage looks and sound so therefore I have to love them warts and all. Maybe I'm naive, but if I want a replica of McCartney's bass then I want it as accurate as possible. I know that 4003 owners may have a difference of opinion but that is my experience and my take. I don't know if that is helpful or not, but when people leave the forums over these types of discussions I feel badly. I feel even worse if they decide that Rickenbacker is not a quality instrument. I hope in this case that is not so.

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 7:45 am

Brian: Good points.

There is no reason for people to leave this Forum over discussions about guitars and music.

When posters cannot agree and begin to insult one another, it becomes personal and the moderator will intervene. When brief edits and comments from the moderator are insufficient to stop the behaviour, the thread is removed.

Regretfully, posts are lost in such situations as partial editing is sometimes interpreted as uneven and makes matters worse. Other than apologize and make this policy clear, there is little I can do if posters are offended with this process and choose to leave.

s4001 · Post by **s4001** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:43 am

"Scott J...If that's your '68 4000 in the fourth pic, then it doesn't appear to have an original tailpiece on it, which is probably why it's lifting. It does have a lot of bridge tilt though, and there's a fix for that too."

I bought it in '93 so I can't assume it's the original bridge. As for the bridge tilt.... I like to think of that as lazy man's intonation technique.

bassbob · Post by **bassbob** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:57 am

I am certainly not trying to stir the pot here, but I don't recall seeing anyone insulting each other. It seemed to me like a fairly typical debate, with people of differing opinions, expressing them in a fairly respectful way. I believe I was the last to post before the deletion occurred, and I know I didn't insult anybody. I've seen it way more heated, here and on the ric site with no intervention. Like I said, I don't want to stir the pot, I just don't think it was neccessary to delete the thread, and chances are we will not here from David again, and that can only hurt the forum.

admin · Post by **admin** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:25 am

Bob: I am sorry you missed the posts to which I referred. I would not have taken this step unless I felt it necessary. Again, for those who lost posts my apology.

charlyg · Post by **charlyg** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 9:29 am

The only thing I can say is, some of us didn't see the animosity you saw in the removed post. I certainly wasn't on either side of any insults, I was just trying to clarify that to be a true scientific experiment, one would have to add screws to a tailpiece that didn't exhibit any lift to see whether or not it improved volume also. Of course, I thought of the most clear way of stating that AFTER the post was removed.

So, as my last hurrah on this subject, you must have control data to compare an experiment with, ie; more that just one instrument, and more than one "control" data point. I believe scientists use the term verifiable to make that point.