Hipshot or Dipstick?

[whojamfan]

It was rumoured around here a month or so ago that RIC was working with Hipshot on the new bridge that so many have been requesting and waiting for, and was implied that the solution was just around the corner. Shortly after this posting. the RIC started altering "Hipshot" to "Dipstick" everytime it's mentioned now, so obviously the deal(if there was in fact any) is not happenning, and Hipshot has joined the ranks of the Janglebox and Pyramid strings.

In the spirit of the late George Carlin, "seven words you can never say on the RIC site".

Rics site is their own, and has the right to do whatever they want with it, and I respect that. It's just these days it's almost like walking on eggshells over there when asking questions or being involved in discussions. Rickenbackers are great instruments and we appreciate how they are made, and the company that makes them. The forum concerns me in that I don't want to get caught up in a political snafu over there, nor do I want to come across as insulting, or get banned for asking a question.

Personally, I'm happy with the bridge that came with my new 4003AFG. I don't play it professionally, or all the time, but when I do, it works for me. I will say however, that the tail has slightly lifted on it, but I'm not in need of replacing it any time soon, as it's not a problem for what it is I'm using it for. Besides, if I'm gonna replace a bridge, it will be the 3 point one that came on my Epiphone EB-3. What a POS that thing is(the bridge, not the bass). It's just the thought of after buying the Hipshot replacement for it, combined with the cost of the new strings I just put on her, I will have spent as much to upgrade it as I paid for it(got it as a blem). Needless to say, I'll live with it.

So, not trying to cause any grief or problems, but does anybody else have an opinion or knowlege that they would like to share on this?

[alanz]

No, but I just like to write "Hipshot."

Hipshot Hipshot Hipshot.

[jwr2]

There are certain subjects they don't want discussed on that web site.

[alanz]

"Don't mention the war."

[espidog]

Earlier this year, I bought a Hipshot bridge (the heavyweight brass version) for my 4003. Having experienced it for several months now, wild horses wouldn't make me change back to the old one. The original 4000 series bridge is lovely to look at, but from a practical usage point of view it's a total dinosaur. When I fitted the hipshot, I was expecting (indeed, looking forward to) massively improved adjustability and ease of use, and got it. What I got as a bonus is a 4003 that has more solid fundamentals, especially in the lowest register, and yet keeps all the classic Rick clang you could wish for. The added weight of the brass has also tipped my neck up a fraction, into what is (for me) a more comfortable position!

It'll come as no surprise, then, to hear that I heartily recommend the Hipshot. True, it hasn't got the classic "1950s automobile" looks of the original, but its chrome finish is superb, fitting it does no damage at all to your instrument, and when it comes to the crucial business of doing what a modern, professional bass bridge is supposed to do, it wins hands down.

[BlueAngel]

Rics site is their own, and has the right to do whatever they want with it, and I respect that. It's just these days it's almost like walking on eggshells over there when asking questions or being involved in discussions. Rickenbackers are great instruments and we appreciate how they are made, and the company that makes them. The forum concerns me in that I don't want to get caught up in a political snafu over there, nor do I want to come across as insulting, or get banned for asking a question.

Personally, I'm happy with the bridge that came with my new 4003AFG. I don't play it professionally, or all the time, but when I do, it works for me. I will say however, that the tail has slightly lifted on it, but I'm not in need of replacing it any time soon, as it's not a problem for what it is I'm using it for.

So, not trying to cause any grief or problems, but does anybody else have an opinion or knowlege that they would like to share on this?

Also without trying to cause any grief, I find the slightly unquestioning-fan attitude to Rickenbacker's design and occasional quality problems on both forums a little annoying. I LOVE Ricks, and in many ways how the company operates, but that doesn't blind me to genuine issues with the instruments which most certainly do exist - I've seen plenty as a professional repairer, and to believe that every Rickenbacker leaves the factory perfect is a fantasy. (Just as it is with any other manufacturer.)

The tail is lifting slightly on my 2-year-old 4003 bridge too, and although it's nowhere near bad enough to cause trouble (yet), the reason for it is simply that the Rick bridge is quite a poor design and is made using too low a quality of metal. There, I said it... sorry. It would be perfectly possible to make a bridge that looked IDENTICAL and didn't suffer from this if it was cast with much thicker walls, machined from solid, or using a harder metal alloy (or a combination of some of these things).

For many years I thought the tail lift was an intentional feature of the 4000 series basses because I had never seen one that was tight down to the body (I didn't see any brand new ones), and that it was maybe meant to decouple the string anchor point from the body slightly - I wondered if it was to give a slightly 'acoustic' resonance to it or something... it was only much later that I realised that it was a fault. To me, it's very poor practice to keep making a flawed part for decades after the problem has become well known. (RIC are far from the only ones, to be fair.)

I think it's great that a company like Hipshot should be offering an alternative which seems to do the job without needing to modify the instrument, although personally I think it looks ugly. It's a shame that RIC won't work with aftermarket parts manufacturers on things like this - it's not as if the Hipshot bridge could ever be mistaken for an original or used to make counterfeit Rickenbackers. If anything, it should benefit the company... I'm sure there are some people who will ONLY buy a Rickenbacker because they know there is a replacement bridge available.

[jakeox]

It's interesting that people ascribe a RIC fanboy attitude to this forum -- in my experience, the majority of people are are rather open to things like Hipshots, and other mods designed to improve playability or feel (which is of course subjective). There are of course collectors who want things original, but that's a different sort of aim than making your bass the exact way you want it.

You see this on general bass forums like talkbass too, where people say, "hey, I know I'm going to get flamed by the Rick fanatics" but for the most part, the responses from Rickenbacker enthusiasts are more even-keeled than people always seem to expect (and much more fair than the ever-present Rick bashers). I'm not sure where the perception of Rick fans as overzealous purists came from, but I don't think it's entirely accurate.

Collectors aside (because, hey, collectors of any instrument want everything original, even the last three flakes remaining of a Fender finish from the 60s), the only types of mods that seem to be looked down on here are the ones that make Ricks less unique, like putting jazz pickups in a 4001. Ricks are fairly different from other makes, so I can see why making them more like more common instruments seems misguided. I personally couldn't care less what people do with their own instruments, as long as they realize that non-reversible mods may kill their resale value. But a trashed Rick is not that different to me than one locked in a collector's vault -- while I might get to see cool pictures of the latter, they're both lost to me.

I can't speak for the corporate forum, as I'm not there often (it's a bit slow, and I'm turned off by the word-substitution censorship -- see, this is on topic!), but here, I think a lot of people are pretty open to criticism and mods. It's just that if you come in and say, hey, this company sucks and their instruments are ****, of course people who are here because they like the instruments are not going to react well.

I think the fact that several people have responded in support of the hipshot already, and nobody's railed against them, attests to the openness of this forum.

[jdogric12]

I had three or four paragraphs all typed out and ready to post, and instead, I think I'll just post this:

Hipshot Hipshot Hipshot

Pyramids Pyramids Pyramids

JangleBox JangleBox JangleBox

(To avoid any confusion, I should add that of the above 3 brands/items, I only use/endorse JangleBox.)

[deaconblues]

Would you rather censor three words or have your company sued for defamation?

[sloop_john_b]

+1 Jake, great post.

[espidog]

I've taken to deliberating on the subject of intentionally derogatory alternative names...
If a Hipshot is now a Dipstick in certain quarters, allow me to offer the following piquant additions to the canon of pointless insult:

Pyramids = Heamorroids

JangleBox = Dangleberry

Pickguardian = Dic.... no, perhaps I'd better leave it there.

Ithangyewverymuch.

[woodyng]

i remember seeing that post that hinted ric might offer the hipshot as an alternate factory install and thinking "great idea!". why worry with R&D when someone has already done the legwork,and is able to offer the product for substantially less than the (allegedly) inferior one? i am usually loathe to change anything on my basses,unless it is going to make an improvement,but the aluminum dipshot/hipstick solved an intonation problem i was unable to fix,and sounds great as well. i also remember the company has been hinting at their own replacement for so long,that if they did finally come out with one,it would probably cost $400 just to pay for all that R&D......

[qwezirider]

Would you rather censor three words or have your company sued for defamation?

Word censoring wouldn't get one out of the mess of defamation. If it's widely known who is being defamed even if the names are changed, name changing is not a defense. For example, if I were to defame someone popular here (just for the sake of argument) yet I used a made up name, I would not be protected because most here would still know about whom I was speaking.

Yep, been there, done that (falsely accused) and got to do all the requisite research to back up myself.

[86kubicki]

The 4001/4003 is an instrument that has seen numerous changes over the years, so switching the factory bridge to a RIC/Hipshot bridge wouldn't faze me at all. RIC could always leave the existing style bridge on "C" or "V" series basses to keep purists happy, (like the Kaufmann on the 325C58).
BTW, is the Hipshot bridge still available? I remember John Hall saying a while back that he was going to talk to Hipshot about the infringement concerns he had regarding the bridge.

[deaconblues]

Would you rather censor three words or have your company sued for defamation?

Word censoring wouldn't get one out of the mess of defamation. If it's widely known who is being defamed even if the names are changed, name changing is not a defense. For example, if I were to defame someone popular here (just for the sake of argument) yet I used a made up name, I would not be protected because most here would still know about whom I was speaking.

Yep, been there, done that (falsely accused) and got to do all the requisite research to back up myself.

Solid, but being a private company, they have to have some degree of control over what's said on their website.

I don't think it's wildly inappropriate that they change three words to maybe protect themselves legally.

As for the bridge, +1 on needing a redesign for wayyy too long...