2010 4003 Body/Neck Join Changes

[paologregorio]

Paul, I’m slightly concerned that you appear to be defending something which I am not in any way attacking. I am not implying that this shape is an acceptable tolerance, I’m just displaying a healthy interest in planned Rickenbacker trends, like slimmer horns, longer headstocks etc. etc.

Good eye, Mark; it's yet another example of RIC's "constant refinements and improvements". In this case, the company is reintroducing ka subtle, aesthetically pleasing, and functional feature found on its earlier basses. That's all I will say about it, except to add that if you have a 2010 4003, compare the feel to some previous year model 4003s.

[teeder]

If the neck is shifted out, then the tailpiece will have to shift out with it, like the 21 fretters.

[bassduke49]

If the neck is shifted out, then the tailpiece will have to shift out with it, like the 21 fretters.

But it's not the neck that is "shifting" or moving at all. The body wings are cut by CNC, but (to my knowledge) they are sanded, bound, and sanded again by hand before being attached to the neck. Any variation could occur at this stage. Now, when they are joined to the body, they are (as I imagine) indexed at the butt end of the neck (below the tailpiece), and the top end falls where it may (within acceptable tolerances). At that stage, the routing is done for the control, pickup, and tailpiece cavities. Most likely the majority of them will be nearly identical, but variances are also likely, and they will probably show most at the joint by the heel of the neck.

[teeder]

Well if the fretboard is out further and the body is still the same basic shape then the tailpiece has to be further away from the end of the body. Also the pu's are slightly in a different location.

[jps]

Well if the fretboard is out further and the body is still the same basic shape then the tailpiece has to be further away from the end of the body. Also the pu's are slightly in a different location.

Look at how close the pickguard is to the edge of the body at the G side of the neck; The lower body wing is shorter, not the neck shifted out.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

my buddy's 2009 jetglo has the tip of the fretboard at the lower body wing binding with a "C" shape neck profile but the tailpiece is where it normally is. they may have shortened the lower wing some in over all length at the glue joint. generally the start of the lower joint would be after the 20th fret wire with the upper joint between the 19th and 20th.

[teeder]

I see what you guys are saying, but I thought I could see more body exposed behind the tailpiece on the 2010 than on the 09 or Jeff's beautiful 08.

[jps]

This one?

[Paolo]

Here are some pics of my week 1 2010 4003 if it helps any.
Upper & lower horns are definitely slimmer than a lot of pre 2009 i've seen.Also,the fretboard seems to end higher,but i think that is where the horns have been made slimmer,it takes the sweeping curves lower down onto where the neck meets the body.

[Paolo]

Some more pics of tailpiece to bottom of body gap & picguard...

[teeder]

This one?

Yeah, that one! What a sweet bass!
I see you had to go through great pains to get a picture of me with out my crutches!

[rickaddict]

The tail on Paul Kris's 4003 pictured above does look like it's mounted a bit inward from most of my Rick basses, but I don't have a recent 4003 to compare it with.

I don't have a pic handy, but the tail on my '73 4001 actually hangs off the back of the body by at least 1/16", maybe 1/8"... And I still had to turn the D and G saddles around to get them far enough back to intonate. My E saddle is all the way back as well.

[Paolo]

The tail on Paul Kris's 4003 pictured above does look like it's mounted a bit inward from most of my Rick basses, but I don't have a recent 4003 to compare it with.

I don't have a pic handy, but the tail on my '73 4001 actually hangs off the back of the body by at least 1/16", maybe 1/8"... And I still had to turn the D and G saddles around to get them far enough back to intonate. My E saddle is all the way back as well.

The tailpiece on mine is 1/4" inward from the bottom of the body.

[BAD RONBO, KiLLeR DWaRfS]

The tail on Paul Kris's 4003 pictured above does look like it's mounted a bit inward from most of my Rick basses, but I don't have a recent 4003 to compare it with.

I don't have a pic handy, but the tail on my '73 4001 actually hangs off the back of the body by at least 1/16", maybe 1/8"... And I still had to turn the D and G saddles around to get them far enough back to intonate. My E saddle is all the way back as well.

did somebody move the tail piece back ? sounds too far back for factory. i had to move mine back to intonate for round wounds on the '64 and '68.

[rickaddict]

did somebody move the tail piece back ? sounds too far back for factory. i had to move mine back to intonate for round wounds on the '64 and '68.

No sir. One set of holes; original tail piece. I get the feeling that they were not necessarily all like that! It's good that it's back so far though, as it's just barely far enough back to intonate.

Not sure if there is a difference in length between aluminum and zinc tails, but my '73 is from July and has the zinc. Maybe the body was made to aluminum tail specs.