The bridge thread.....let's be nice and civil....

[johnallg]

Look on the RIC Acronyms tab of this spreadsheet for what the acronyms all mean.
http://rrf.mcx.net/Rick_400x_Neck_Measurements.xls

[Tarrbot]

I guess the Education of the Tarrbot just went up by about +5 or so.

Thanks, John. That's awesome.

[aceonbass]

It's not that I'm suggesting you not try to bend it back, but once it's straight, peeling chrome, re-plated or not, it will need two screws added to the rear. I don't know why there's such resistance to a solution that RIC introduced 30 years ago. By the way, the metal IS weaker that it was once you've bent it back, particularly when it's done in an oven.

[DanJ]

It's not that I'm suggesting you not try to bend it back, but once it's straight, peeling chrome, re-plated or not, it will need two screws added to the rear. I don't know why there's such resistance to a solution that RIC introduced 30 years ago. By the way, the metal IS weaker that it was once you've bent it back, particularly when it's done in an oven.

Rickenbacker may have introduced that solution way back when but it didn't stick. Maybe I missed it, but I was in a music store two weeks ago and saw a brand new 4003 whose tailpiece did not have screws on the curved end. As such, it seems that Rickenbacker resorted to this solution temporarily, applied more so to the 5-string basses. Perhaps some time after Rickenbacker applied the 7-screw solution, they redesigned the tailpiece structurally and/or cast new tailpieces out of stronger materials, thus no longer necessitating the 7-screw application - at least for the 4-string models? Please advise further on this, as I am interested to learn more about this.

I appreciate and respect your opinion. I just wish to keep my bass as stock and original as possible. The 7-screw solution is not acceptable to me because: One, it requires extra holes be cut - er, drilled, which may tend to devalue the instrument and: Two, it defeats what I perceive to be an effort by the first designers to hide the original 3 mounting screws under the bridge, for a cleaner appearance. Even the 5-screw version attempts to hide the extra screws under the E and G strings.

Those who can live with the 7-screw solution, all power to them. I prefer the 5-screw application.

I found this link Gary provided for someone else:

http://www.rickresource.com/phpBB3/view ... ft#p385402

Thanks! Keeping the issue of the chrome plating cracking/peeling in mind, I may give this a try.

The lift on my bridge is nowhere near as severe as in the examples seen in the link above (Between 1/16 to 1/8 inch), but I like for all the parts on my guitars/basses to fit flush and as such am willing to try anything within reason to achieve that. Worst case scenario, I suppose, is to seek a new, factory original assembly. As of this post Rickenbacker are out of stock, but will keep an eye on their site for availability going forward.

[Mr. Meaty]

Dan. Try the hipshot retro fit replacement bridge.retains the basic look and requires No extra holes, and many different and easy adjustment variations as well.

[aceonbass]

When RIC introduced the 4003, the tailpieces all had 7 screws. They were eventually removed because a large number of people who valued cosmetics over function objected. The tailpiece has since been reinforced, but they still bend. I have two 4003's here for custom work who's tailpieces were lifting when I got them. One is a 2008 and the other was brand new, and by brand new I mean fresh out of a box opened the first time by me since my customer bought it sight unseen and had it shipped directly to me! Now I'm not suggesting that there is a problem at RIC as the solution they tried was rejected, and I'm not saying these things are gonna lift enough to put a pack of matches under, but it's not optimal sound wise for these things to lift. Once one of these has bent, it will bend again. If you don't wanna drill two holes after you've bent it back, then I think your best solution is to purchase a new one. Since the RIC Boutique is out, your best bet is Ebay, where I sold a brand new one just last week.
Be advised when using a Hipshot that basses with shallow neck angles will require action too low to be compensated for by the these. Many 30 year+ Ricks have just such a problem.

[Mr. Meaty]

Not True Dane . The hipshot can be made to fit shallow angles . I have proved that in a previous thread . rick bridges (no matter if their new or not ) cannot be compensated for extreme forward neck pitch.

[aceonbass]

I remember your post about that John and stand corrected. I have a chromed aluminum Hipshot in front of me as I write and see what it was you were talking about. My thinking is that if the Hipshot part that was supposed to solve all the problems of the stock piece had to be modified to work, then one should move on. Incidently, the chrome plating on this one, as well as all the Hipshot replacement bridges for Ricks, sucks in the recessed area behind the saddles. The raised sides of this piece stop about 1/32" on either sides of the E and G saddles. There's also about 1/16" between each saddle. These parts should be a tight fit to increase sustain and keep the saddles from moving (problems other Hipshot users have mentioned). I can understand why the original RIC part (designed during the Kennedy administration) isn't perfect, but the Hipshot's much newer design should have been perfect, and it aint. I just compared this bridge to the Hipshot Supertone on my Epiphone Blackbird, and both bridges use the SAME saddles, only the Supertone has walls between them and sides that meet flush with the E and G saddles, making for a much better part. The stock RIC part has it's drewbacks, all of which can be fixed, but the Hipshot has other problems that would be very difficult to completely remedy. Oh, and RIC bridges can be modified to compensate for extremely shallow neck angles. I've never met a RIC bass bridge I couldn't fix.

[Lost Coyotes]

(DanJ): "The lift on my bridge is nowhere near as severe as in the examples seen in the link above (Between 1/16 to 1/8 inch), but I like for all the parts on my guitars/basses to fit flush and as such am willing to try anything within reason to achieve that."

Dan, my 1973 4001 was about the same as you describe, and with respect to everyones opinions here, my solution to this is very simple and works well. It straightened the tailpiece and did no further damage to chrome or anything else.

I assembled the tp in a clamp and cranked her down a bit, waited a while and repeated - several times. As needed, just don't rush it; give the metal time to adjust itself. When it was close to flat I went a little more, to allow for some spring-back when released from the clamp.

Important stuff; make sure you put something soft between parts to prevent scratches, and make sure everything is centered and straight as you torque it down.
More important stuff; when you re-assemble the bass, make sure that - if needed - you use washers or shims - between the tp and the cavity - to take up the space, so it is a flat fit and won't begin bending the tp again as you tighten down the three screws, and do not overtighten those three screws!

Hope this helps. It worked fine for me.

Crude but effective if you go slowly and carefully.

A straight edge rule against the bottom of tailpiece: it's flat.

[johnallg]

I like your, uh, fixture, Mike. Simple but effective. Adding to your washer info, adding these to fill the void between the maple and the tp in the rout area can alleviate smaller amounts of lift that are due to the 3 screws drawing the tp down, as long as the lift is very small, and due to that downpressure.

[DanJ]

Dane, thank you for your well informed insights on this matter. It is much appreciated.

Mike, your rig is a lot simpler than Gary's so I will most likely give that a try first.

John, the Hipshot is under consideration but first I will endeavor to keep the instrument stock.

[Mr. Meaty]

Dan. I too am a believer in keeping my basses stock .from what ive seen in these threads, Danes immediate approach is to sock more holes in the bass to solve the problem .I cant make myself do that . The hipshot is a retro fit that requires no extra screw holes or molestation in any way .I have been fiddling with stock rick bridges for over 20 years . I have tryed everything to get them to work with extreme forward pitch. Ive grinded on them , made custom saddles , turned them around backwards, Ive even had them milled down . They way the saddles are on them . It can only be done a little bit . not really changing the problem .rick bridges also rock back and forth causing intonation problems. I will also agree with Dane , that the hipshot is not perfect by any stretch . But compared to Ricks 48 year old design . There is no contest . I have four vintage ricks sitting here . All have Hipshots on them except my shadow wich has of course ,has a stock seven screw bridge . and in my opinion , the seven screw kills the sustain and the tone of the bass. Even with my saddle mod ,(cutting a small string slot with a needle file ) there is still enough of a rise from bridge to saddle . Heck , we even tune down a half a step live and i still have no problems with sustain.They have more mass, and are far more ridged than the stock Rick bridge,so sustain because of the string angle is not a factor.I fly the Rick flag every gig i play . But that does not mean they are perfect . Nothing or nobody is. I am only offering an opinion . A way to solve problems that i have encountered .Im not trying to offend the Rickenfaithfull in any way .But in fact sometimes there are better alternatives to problems whether we like it or not. Let me close by saying . I really do love my Ricks .thats why i have stuck with them . Quirks and all.

[aceonbass]

Adding two screws to the rear does not kill the tone or sustain of the bass. It didn't in 1981 and it doesn't now. If that were true all the basses with 7 screws, of which there are many on this forum, would have had the two screws removed to increase sustain and improve tone. It would also mean that all 5 and 8 string Ricks would also have a problem with their tone and sustain, which they do not. Making a more solid coupling between the tailpiece and body has can not possibly kill the tone or decrease the sustain. The Hipshot, after all, does just that. If you don't want to drill two holes (that can't be seen ) in the bass, that's a matter of personal preference. I'd like to see pics of the bass that has such a shallow neck angle that a stock bridge can't be modified to work, but on which an unmodified Hipshot will work. When the neck angle is that shallow, it's that big giant route at the edge of the fretboard that's to blame for sure. That route is also something I address with my 8-string conversions. While I can fix all of the problems with the stock bridge, including the tilting, I don't have the ability to make wider saddles for the Hipshot, and why should anyone at $125.00 apiece or more? That Hipshot used off the shelf saddles from another application that fit the bridge that poorly is surprising. That any of the Rickenfaithfull would criticize the stock part and then be blind to the faults of an after market part is just as surprising.

[rickenbrother]

Hmmm, someone is starting to sound and post just like someone else again.

[cassius987]

I have to admit, the quality of the Hipshot saddles really disappointed me. I wish they didn't wobble--that's a real annoyance. I also agree with Dane about the neck angle argument, the stock bridge wins there in my experience.

If 7-bolt tailpieces kill the tone, a Hipshot would even more, because both add surface contact to the body of the bass, only the Hipshot does moreso. Personally I think that's why they add such a kick to a lot of the low frequencies but I can't be sure.