dave001 wrote:so if i get this right nearly every 4001/4003 will have tail lift unless they have 7 screws?
The zinc ones, probably a little, but the newest zinc ones with 5 screws barely show any lift at all in many cases. The only ones that don't lift even a little are the old aluminum ones and the 7-screw zinc ones.[/quote]
if i get a new 5 screw one and some ti flats is that my best bet?
I put a C64 tailpiece on my '11 4003, and the thing started lifting almost right away. I added 2 slightly smaller screws in the 7-screw factory location and the problem is fixed. At least there are only two screws showing now, as opposed to four on the 7-screw part. Besides the slight change in break angle, I believe that there is increased sustain and a slight boost in the low mids when the rear of the tailpiece is held firmly to the body, even if it isn't lifting. My luthier, who has a degree in mechanical engineering and designs and builds his own line of basses, also believes this. Will a 2 mm lift make the bass unplayable or sound bad? No, of course not, but I like my basses to be the best and most functional they can be.
chefothefuture wrote:
If you want "Old School" thump , Optima 4099.
Both are low tension strings and are "kinder" to the necks and hardware of Ricks.
Little OT, but do your Optima E-string sound different from the other strings? I mean a lot more thump there? I'm just wondering if it should be like that or do I just have a bad E-string.
Actually E and A are much thumper than D and G.
I have two basses strung with Optimas and it's the
same in both cases.
I prefer the tone of the TI's but I like the feel of the Optimas....
The TI's are also a little lower in tension...
dave001 wrote:so if i get this right nearly every 4001/4003 will have tail lift unless they have 7 screws?
The zinc ones, probably a little, but the newest zinc ones with 5 screws barely show any lift at all in many cases. The only ones that don't lift even a little are the old aluminum ones and the 7-screw zinc ones.
if i get a new 5 screw one and some ti flats is that my best bet?[/quote]
I would first try the TI jazz flats(I think it's set # JF-344) .
I would not buy a new tailpiece as the C tailpiece and the
4003 are the same. (the differences are extra holes in the 4003 and the
gap "tooth" in the C64)
Just drill the screw holes ( or have any experienced guitar tech)
in the spots on the template. Any one with a good drill press could do it...
drilling the holes sounds a lot cheaper
will that do the job or do i need to put washers under the tail somewere?
im sure i read about washers somewere on here
dave001 wrote:drilling the holes sounds a lot cheaper
will that do the job or do i need to put washers under the tail somewere?
im sure i read about washers somewere on here
thank you
No, you won't need washers.
You will need that template, and you will need to have the holes countersunk so that the screw heads do not stick out.
A well equipped guitar repair shop should have the tools and knowhow....It would be a big plus if they have experience with Ricks.
Since 1985, Ric necks are designed to handle any gauge of strings. If the problem part now is the tailpiece, then I'd replace it with one that doesn't lift, or have it converted to 7-bolt. It doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't be able to use your favorite strings on a modern made bass.
ilan wrote:Since 1985, Ric necks are designed to handle any gauge of strings. If the problem part now is the tailpiece, then I'd replace it with one that doesn't lift, or have it converted to 7-bolt. It doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't be able to use your favorite strings on a modern made bass.
I think the string part of the discussion came about as the question about using Pyramids was raised.
And since when has anything Rickenbacker made sense? LOL!
ilan wrote:Since 1985, Ric necks are designed to handle any gauge of strings. If the problem part now is the tailpiece, then I'd replace it with one that doesn't lift, or have it converted to 7-bolt. It doesn't make sense to me that you wouldn't be able to use your favorite strings on a modern made bass.
i totally agree you should be able to use ANY strings you want to now-a-days
if the aluminium are the best why did they stop making them? was it because they change manufacturer?
I wonder if it would be mega $$$ to get a cast made ?
The Hipshot bridge is cast, not milled, and has issues of it's own which have been discussed here. The original RIC aluminum tailpieces were cast in house, and were a very labor intensive process that no one liked doing. I would guess that as RIC bass production took off with the popularity of prog rock, that the change in materials and probably a switch to an outside manufacturer was deemed necessary. The original factory tailpiece was also a very sold casting without all the voids that even the newest ones have, so I don't think it's a zinc versus aluminum issue, but an early casting versus the later casting issue. I've actually got a couple right here, and it looks like it would be easy to just re-cast them like the original. This would definitely be heavier if it were solid zinc though.
A sandcast piece is more labor intensive to to prep for the plating. A diecast piece is much smoother when it comes out of the die plus can be removed from the die much quicker making it faster to produce. I don't doubt that there is a big cost savings with the diecast piece.
ken_j wrote:A sandcast piece is more labor intensive to to prep for the plating. A diecast piece is much smoother when it comes out of the die plus can be removed from the die much quicker making it faster to produce. I don't doubt that there is a big cost savings with the diecast piece.
is the lift is fixable other then the two screws drill solution?
can the tailpiece can bent back by any tools or by heating?
did anyone here tried something like this?
