Tailpiece Lift

[myrtbass]

Hello fellow forumites. I'm not sure if it has been sugested before or not.Regarding the never ending topic of the dreaded tailpiece lift, is there any reason why Rickenbacker has never cured this problem by using string through the body ferrules as used on some Fender basses and guitars. If that were done, players could use any kind of strings they want, without any lift whatsoever. The only downside I could see is some possible weakening in the wood where the ferrules were installed. It would be an inexpensive change ? and the problem solved. Your responses to this post are welcome. Roger.

[badeggs]

They haven't "cured" it because it's really not that much of a problem.

[Grey]

Hello fellow forumites. I'm not sure if it has been sugested before or not.Regarding the never ending topic of the dreaded tailpiece lift, is there any reason why Rickenbacker has never cured this problem by using string through the body ferrules as used on some Fender basses and guitars. If that were done, players could use any kind of strings they want, without any lift whatsoever. The only downside I could see is some possible weakening in the wood where the ferrules were installed. It would be an inexpensive change ? and the problem solved. Your responses to this post are welcome. Roger.

They "cured" the problem with the 7-screw tailpiece but then for whatever reason went back to the 5-screw. I'm not a bassist so I don't know more than that.

[heinpete]

They haven't "cured" it because it's really not that much of a problem.

...and you can always buy a new tailpiece!
No, kidding! - It's just tradition for Rickenbacker basses.

[badeggs]

Didn't mean to come off so glib! But outside of the rare faulty tailpiece that actually bends up 1/2 an inch or more and must be replaced, it's not that big of a deal. If the tail lifts a 1/16th, it's not going to affect intonation or depth of sound or anything else, at least to most ears. And if so inclined, one can straighten the tail back out using any of several well-documented methods (the washer trick, clamp and bend, etc.)...

And Rick's not going to switch to a different stringing method after all these years. Theoretically in a new model, but not on the 4003. That tailpiece is iconic...

But this all goes for four strings. For a 5- or 8-string bass, the 7-screw tailpiece is recommended due to all the extra tension. I think they cancelled the 7-screw variety because people complained about the look, but don't quote me on that!

[iamthebassman]

They DID fix it, in the early 80s.

But, as I understand it, there were lots of negative comments concerning the look, so they changed it back.
My question is: with all the negative comments concerning the antiquated bridge design, and Mr. Hall saying they were designing a new bridge about 10 years ago now, where is it???

[rickenbrother]

My question is: with all the negative comments concerning the antiquated bridge design, and Mr. Hall saying they were designing a new bridge about 10 years ago now, where is it???

I have seen the drawn up design for it, so it really is in the work. At what stage, I don't know, but I guess in a small company, changes like that are going to take time. Then I'm assuming there's also the concern about how well received the change will be, no matter how much better the new design may be.

[woodyng]

Well,what did YOU think about it,Joey? (not to put you on the spot or anything... )
Can you reveal any details or are you sworn to secrecy?

[pag]

Mentioning how the Bridge/tail is regarded as iconic brings me back to the point that if we keep the iconic look of the 4001 bass then
maybe the original tail is best as it doesnt seem to have given any trouble so why not just go for a copy of the old one?.
I have changed the tails on two of my Ricks due to uplift and believe me that no matter how small the gap when the tail lifts it bugs the heck out
of you,it doesnt get better or go away and yet it must be an easy engineering problem to solve in the manufacture for those in that area of the casting buisiness.
The voids in the casting on the modern ones seem to be where the problem lies.

Oh well heres wishing.

[iamthebassman]

Then I'm assuming there's also the concern about how well received the change will be, no matter how much better the new design may be.

I'd be happy if they just made the new-design bridge available for purchase, they don't even need to put them on new basses, just sell as a retro-fit.

[ken_j]

I was looking at a bass a few weeks back that appeared to have a small amount of lift. Before making any judgements I took a straigt edge to the body only to find a slight contouring. The lift was way less than it appeared. The body looked flat but in reality it wasn't.
Since the 4003 and the 4004 currently use the same neck RIC could easily use the Schaller bridge on both. I would assume they don't want to alter the look of the 4003.

[harrek]

I was looking at a bass a few weeks back that appeared to have a small amount of lift. Before making any judgements I took a straigt edge to the body only to find a slight contouring. The lift was way less than it appeared. The body looked flat but in reality it wasn't.
Since the 4003 and the 4004 currently use the same neck RIC could easily use the Schaller bridge on both. I would assume they don't want to alter the look of the 4003.

And I'm assuming the bass Ken is talking about is my 5 string. I have just noticed Dane has a 5 string replacement bridge in the for sale area and was tempted to get it. But as Ken said, the lift is very small when looking the contour of the body.

[ken_j]

There was also V63 like this.

[rickenbrother]

Well,what did YOU think about it,Joey? (not to put you on the spot or anything... )
Can you reveal any details or are you sworn to secrecy?

Even if I were at liberty to share details, it doesn't mean it's not still in the process of further changes since I saw the drawing. So I could wind up being way off with what I describe.

[cassius987]

Then I'm assuming there's also the concern about how well received the change will be, no matter how much better the new design may be.

I think this is the reason we haven't seen it yet. Anything they do will be compared to what a 4003 "should" look like and disparaged accordingly. They are still backlogged; there is very little business incentive to do anything, even though it seems clear to me they are very much about innovating. At least there is the 4004. In my fantasy I see a bass design somewhere in between the 4002 or 4003 and the 4004 come along as a third option.

The current 5-screw tailpiece is generally free of tailpiece lift as far as my experience goes although I have to agree with those who are annoyed the 7-screw got booed out of existence. My only real gripe with the traditional tailpiece is the way the mute cavity and "teeth" make it really hard to palm mute. The foam mute absolutely does not replace palm muting but is a cool thing in its own way.

I'd be happy if they just made the new-design bridge available for purchase, they don't even need to put them on new basses, just sell as a retro-fit.

I think the biggest issue is the bodies are still routed for the adjustable mute. That really limits a lot of retrofitting options. If they ditched that it would probably be a lot easier to swap different designs in and out.