Weird non-acorn nut on my truss rod--anyone know what it is?

[cassius987]

I recently contacted RIC for some technical support. In the process they had me take some snapshots of my truss rods. First you will see the headstock end...



The rods are basically maxed, hence my contacting them, but everything here looks 100% RIC as far as my eyes can tell. But when I got to the body end there was a weird surprise.



The D/G rod has a weird non-acorn type nut on the end. When I saw this I thought, "Hm, must be some RIC quirk where they mixed up the parts," but it didn't bug me. I had the bass in their shop in 2009 for warranty and they said they replaced the truss rods so my best guess is someone used a strange nut when that happened, if not when the bass first shipped from the factory in 2008. This is the first time I have ever looked at the body end of the truss rods so I can't be sure. In any case, RIC came back and said their guitar tech was unfamiliar with this kind of nut and did not think they would have used it in the shop. Okay... so how did it get there? My guess is it had to happen at RIC, but whoever did it is gone or has no memory of doing it. All I know is this couldn't have happened under my watch, and the RIC factory is the only other entity to ever have custody of the bass besides myself and my luthier who has set the bass up a couple of times, but I confirmed with him over the phone that he never touched the truss rods other than to adjust them at the headstock end.

In any case I was wondering if someone could comment on the nut itself, or even if someone else has seen a similar nut in their Ric bass. It almost looks like the same kind of nut as at the headstock end. And if I ever have to replace the truss rod, is this nut going to change the procedure? It looks like a tight fit, if nothing else.

[cjj]

Is this on your 2008 4003FL AFG? If so, since mine's the next serial number higher, I'll take a look and see if mine has the same sort of anomaly. You bought that one new, didn't you? Someone probably picked up a nut that would get the job done and forgot about it. Maybe it was accidentally in the same bin as the acorn nuts - it happens, sometimes even in a brand new box. Whoever put it on probably just said, "Huh, that's different. Oh well, it'll work," and moved on to the next task at hand.

As for doing something different, in general, the only difference between an acorn nut and a standard one is the closed end cap. They usually have the same hex socket size and so will have the same "footprint" where they contact the underlying material, so will perform the same...

[cassius987]

CJ, the only sticky wicket here is that I actually had warranty work on it in 2009 and the truss rods were replaced, so that may make it harder to compare our basses. Still, I appreciate you checking and who knows what you may discover.

The good news is that after some tweaking and a bit lighter strings this bass is working well now.

[johnallg]

That nut in question looks like an acorn nut the cap came off of. Happened to one of my basses; don't remember which one.

I'd be concerned the maple is soft and the nuts are moving up the neck. That's why the truss nuts are maxed out.

[sloop_john_b]

Been there!

[aceonbass]

I've seen acorn nuts lose their pressed on cap, so this could be what happened. I really wish RIC would make the truss rods a little longer and put a thrust plate at the body end like at the headstock. This would solve a lot of problems, such as John B's "V68" issue.

[cassius987]

Ah, they can lose their caps? I had no idea. But then... I feel like I would have found the missing cap right? I guess I need to look under the pickguard again for something loose.

Does the picture look like the maple is soft? I thought it looked okay.

While the rods are basically maxed I am now happy with the setup... had to change the strings (went from 42lbs/string to 38lbs/string with a set of LaBella flats) and do some tweaking, but it's where I want it now. So don't cry for me, RRF.

[aceonbass]

Rickenbacker basses are the ONLY basses I've ever heard of where people discuss whether or not the string tension is too much. It's 2012 for Chrissake. Is this STILL an issue?

[johnallg]

Does the picture look like the maple is soft? I thought it looked okay.

While the rods are basically maxed I am now happy with the setup... had to change the strings (went from 42lbs/string to 38lbs/string with a set of LaBella flats) and do some tweaking, but it's where I want it now. So don't cry for me, RRF.

Look at where the red ends and the clear maple shows. It looks like the nuts are moving up into the neck. At the other end, you have way too much rod showing and like you said, no more thread to use. Four fix thoughts: Pull the rods and either drill the holes larger and plug then re-drill for the rods and nuts, OR keep coating with the liquid super glue until the wood is saturated, then add flat washers of the right size to the rod to get the acorn nuts back where they should be. A third option would be to make new rods that are longer and put a plate across the bottom like Dane suggested. The fourth would be the route John B went and have Larry Davis do the full fix. I'd try the super glue first - cheap and easy.

[cassius987]

Rickenbacker basses are the ONLY basses I've ever heard of where people discuss whether or not the string tension is too much. It's 2012 for Chrissake. Is this STILL an issue?

Dane, I don't recall discussing whether the string tension was too much. The fact is, my bass needed some lighter strings in its current condition. Whatever you want to draw from that is fine with me.

I can say with confidence it's not as strong of a neck as my 2010 with its two-piece design.

[aceonbass]

I wasn't targeting you with my response Joshua. I just keep seeing terms like "maxed out rods" and "excessive string tension" used so much in relation to Rick basses. My 2 piece neck basses are definitely stronger and will take any string you can throw at them, but the weak point is the big route that goes all the way up to the fingerboard on 4003's, and the pickup route that's right up against the board on 4004's. Add to that the fact that the cutaways are about 1/4" deeper than they were a few years back, and it becomes clear to me that this area is weakened and flexes with string tension. The neck angle gets shallower on both of my two-piece Rick basses. It's only by a couple millimeters, but it's annoying, and the reason RIC bass bridges on various models over the years are bottomed out with no adjustment. Perhaps if the surface of the neck were angled downward towards the headstock a couple millimeters it would flatten out under tension. I'd at least not have the route go all the way to the board on 4003s, and move the pickup back on 4004's leaving a couple of routs for truss rod access. In fact, could the rods be made a bit longer, and flipped around with a thrust plate at the body end and a metal plate covering the area like on Alembics for 4004's, and covered by the guard on 4003's like the early 4003's? This would also result in a stronger headstock. Anyone checked how deep the headstock route on the new 4004's is? It's so deep it almost comes out the back. By the way, it looks to me like your rod's end nuts are sinking into the rod channels Joshua. The rods on my two piece necks barely have any tension on them...even the 5-string conversion.

[cassius987]

Dane, I think some of your ideas are great, but I am not sure how widespread the problems you cite actually are, even as I am experiencing somewhat of an issue myself. Take the bass this thread was started about for example... the neck angle is just like it should be so the action stays low all along the fingerboard (I have measured and can give actual numbers if you want them), and last night I actually added relief back to the neck so the rods are no longer maxed... I guess the strings I put on were lighter than it needed although I am definitely keeping them on because I love the tone. I don't think my 2008 4003FL is the best example of a neck RIC can make considering it is weaker than all of my others and 2008 was the year for skinny one-piece necks, but now that I have gotten the setup issues sorted it works just fine, and I am still loving it.

I'm curious which you think is worse for the neck flexing--the big 4003 rout, or the 4004 pickup being right next to the fingerboard?

I have only had one Ric bass do the "neck flexing" thing so far and that is my 4001FL, which I got in pretty bad shape, although it has a little more wood in the pickup rout area than a modern 4003 (I think). To fix this the bridge had to be countersunk... would not have been happy to do this on a new bass but considering the shape this bass came in when I got it, I was okay with it and am pleased as punch with the results.

[aceonbass]

I've seen the negative (although slight) neck angle MANY times. It's not severe on newer basses, but for instance, the rear pickup on most 4004's I've seen need to sit lower in the wood in order to maintain the same distance from the strings with either pickup spacing. Earlier 4004's had the fingerboard top sitting higher above the body deck, which I think exacerbated the situation. How many here have replaced ABM bridges because the action couldn't be adjusted low enough? I feel that the 4004 neck pickup's route is probably a bit more compromising than a 4003's, particularly since the cutaways are now about 1cm deeper, while the pickup route is in the same place. I'm sure the cutaway was made deeper to facilitate access to the 20th fret, but it just weakened this area. On the other hand, my 1997 4003 8-string conversion (which has made several appearances here) has a fretboard that is parallel with the body surface. The reasons for this (even though there is an additional 80+ pounds of string pressure and a slightly thinner board) are that the fretboard has been replaced with a 21 fret board made of jarrah, and that the entire neck pickup route has been fitted with a maple block, then routed just large and deep enough for the toaster pickup that's there now. I've since done this on all of the 8-string 4003 conversions I've been involved with. Also, in '97 the cutaways weren't as deep as now. Here's a pic of how I dealt with the big route issue on my "4008CS"....

[cassius987]

And plugging the rout with maple--that somehow fixes the problem or just stops it from advancing?

[aceonbass]

The maple block does a couple things. It strengthens the area and seems to keep it from flexing, and since the block crosses the body wing seams, it will keep the neck from pulling away from them as we've seen on some 4008/4003S8's. The block doesn't address the receding truss rod issue, but I've never had that problem on one of my basses. If I did, I would make the block shorter, fit a metal thrust plate in the recess, and use longer rods. This is the method Dale Fortune uses.