antonius wrote:As a matter of interest what is the tension exerted by Rickenbacker 45-55-75-105 strings? I'm sure it would be useful to know when people are considering alternatives and assessing risk...
About 145 pounds.
aceonbass wrote:A current 4003 neck will easily handle more than 150lbs of tension. The weak link is the transition from neck to body due to the huge neck pickup route, and I believe RIC knows this.
A current 4003 will indeed handle much more than that but this thread was addressing a 2005 model year 4001C64S which does not like tensions above 150 pounds. Of course, some pieces of wood will remain fine at much higher tensions.
antonius wrote:As a matter of interest what is the tension exerted by Rickenbacker 45-55-75-105 strings? I'm sure it would be useful to know when people are considering alternatives and assessing risk...
About 145 pounds.
Last edited by antonius on Wed Sep 04, 2013 1:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
aceonbass wrote:A current 4003 neck will easily handle more than 150lbs of tension. The weak link is the transition from neck to body due to the huge neck pickup route, and I believe RIC knows this.
Yep, my 4003/5 is currently strung up with 213 pounds of tension and is handling it like a champ. No problems with the neck angle either, although it's constructed from a modern 4003 after they started doing the CNC neck pickup routing.
I think it's futile to try and get RIC to admit to some kind of design-flaw or wrong-doing in a public forum; to do so would open RIC to a countless number of consumer complaints, and people seeking restitution, which would obviously cost RIC a fantastic amount of money. For example: the only reason car companies go on-record when their products have a design-flaw is because lives are potentially at-stake, but that doesn't mean they enjoy admitting those flaws, nor spending millions to correct it.
I'm not saying that there is not a RIC design-flaw, but I think there's a reason why everyone is a little agitated when these things arise. For the Halls: they have to defend their company -- right or wrong -- to avoid a potentially crippling blow from consumers, though defending a position which one (and one's attackers) know is questionable is not a happy occasion. Publicly admitting wrong-doing or a design-flaw is a huge liability for a company, financially and otherwise. For customers: they feel they've been sold something that isn't up to the standards for which they paid, and the evidence seems clear; we've got lots of professional musicians, technicians, and luthiers on this forum (Mr. Wilder in this case, but there are many others) who have discussed this same issue at length for many years, and have even proposed solutions. (However, even implementing solutions suggested by consumers can even be an invitation to legal problems.)
It seems like there's no clear "winner" here in the public forum. When something like this arises publicly and you get a response from RIC: it's not just about your instrument to them; it's about the integrity of their company, even if it's just about your particular instrument to you. Even if that integrity should be suspect -- and there are numerous threads which assert (whether it's correct or not) that it should be suspect for one reason or another -- it's unlikely that it will be admitted in a public fashion.
I sincerely hope that Mark and Rick are able to sort this out and arrive at a wonderfully-playable instrument, but I (unfortunately) don't think RIC is going to play any part in that outcome at this point; there's potentially too much at stake. It's remarkable enough -- as far as international corporations go -- that John Hall personally chimed-in with details about the body parts not being routed while assembled during this manufacturing period, and factory string-tension.
However, the string tension-thing and warranty void thing gets me; I don't remember seeing anything about string-tension in the warranty, and the only thing mentioned in the manual (with regard to strings) is the size of factory-installed strings. String-tension not only varies according to size, but string material as well; you can keep the same size and have higher/lower tension just based upon the string material/construction. The manual even details what the player needs to change in the set-up when altering string gauge, but never have I seen anything from RIC which specifically states a range of acceptable string-tension per instrument. If this information exists in an "official" capacity: someone please post it so that the rest of us can abide by it. (Then again: I've never owned a 4001; maybe that additional information is provided with that model.)
I appreciate everyone's transparency (especially Mark's detailed photos) in this, but don't expect RIC to have the (legal) ability to be as transparent.
Last edited by DriftSpace on Wed Sep 04, 2013 11:57 am, edited 3 times in total.
Is there a list of "approved" c64 strings? I don't have any way to measuring string tension, and I am not aware that strings are marketed as high tension or low tension. It does not seem that string gauge alone is sufficient to make the distinction as to what may be safe or safer for the c64.
Whether one characterizes the c64 of that period as inferior by design (factory rout) or what the bass likes or doesn't like, it would be helpful to have a list of strings that are better or worse for this model. Is there a wiki or sticky on this, by any chance?
Tramper Al wrote:it would be helpful to have a list of strings that are better or worse for this model. Is there a wiki or sticky on this, by any chance?
I certainly feel like there should be after reading through all this. Sheesh.
Tramper Al wrote:it would be helpful to have a list of strings that are better or worse for this model. Is there a wiki or sticky on this, by any chance?
I certainly feel like there should be after reading through all this. Sheesh.
It doesn't seem right to void the warranty based upon a certain string-tension if that information isn't publicly -- and "officially" -- available. Maybe it has been and we just don't know where to find it, but if that's the case: it would be hard to believe that someone here hasn't seen it.
DriftSpace wrote:However, the string tension-thing and warranty void thing gets me; I don't remember seeing anything about string-tension in the warranty, and the only thing mentioned in the manual (with regard to strings) is the size of factory-installed strings. String-tension not only varies according to size, but string material as well; you can keep the same size and have higher/lower tension just based upon the string material/construction. The manual even details what the player needs to change in the set-up when altering string gauge, but never have I seen anything from RIC which specifically states a range of acceptable string-tension per instrument. If this information exists in an "official" capacity: someone please post it so that the rest of us can abide by it. (Then again: I've never owned a 4001; maybe that additional information is provided with that model.)
I am going to guess that the maximum tension allowable under warranty service is the 145 lbs of the factory strings.
It seems RIC does not permanently toss out the warranty with non-conforming strings but will void it for the specific RA number used to return the bass. I didn't get this distinction but at least in some cases the bass could be returned under a new RA with conforming strings and get service. Even Rick's invoice seemed to indicate to me this was true (although his bass did get service).
Sometimes I got warranty service with fatter strings, like when they cleaned up several dings I'd put in the finish in the first year, but they always fit the nut just fine. I think what tipped the service department off the time they voided my service on my 4003FL was the D string was too big for the nut -- also, the strings were flats so obviously not factory. I didn't learn until later my warranty was not altogether lost on that bass, just for that one particular trip. I was stupid to send it in with those strings anyway, I knew what the rules were.
If you aren't sure if your strings are safe under the warranty or not perhaps you should consider if the gauges of any one of the strings are wildly off from the factory spec (15% or more of the original diameter) and then the same question about the overall tension.
cassius987 wrote:I am going to guess that the maximum tension allowable under warranty service is the 145 lbs of the factory strings.
Yeah, but you shouldn't have to guess if it's really a serious issue with any particular instrument.
Does anything other than factory strings technically void the warranty?
I would be amazed if they rejected anything of an equal or lower tension as 145 lbs is already kind of wimpy. TI JF344s come in at around 136 on a Ric. The string that got me busted is listed at a little over 50 lbs on a 34'' scale although the overall set only ends up in the 160s. It was one of those sets where the D string is the highest tension, before I started using balanced sets.
Quite recently I've been paying strict attention to string tension over string size. The different Rickenbacker basses in my collection like different tensions. Case in point, the 4002 that Larry Davis resurrected does not like the .106 Circkle K's I have on 95 % of my RIC basses. I had to go with a set of balanced .098 (which come in at approx. 37 lbs per string). My 65 seems to want more. i have the same strings on her and have finger tight truss rod nuts. I'm reluctant to go higher and will wait until she gets her re-fret and fingerboard refinished. If she does want more, I'll go up to a balanced set of .102's.
If your string company does not list tensions, contact them and ask. Your strings are like footwear, there are slight variations in sized amongst the major brands. You certainly woudl nto purchase and wear a pair of ill fitting shoes, would you??
I'm not going to embroil myself in what RIC should and should not do, lest I be tarred and feathered. I think we all realize that having the most critical and complete info will assist EVERYONE involved and keep our prized instruments happy and trouble free. I know what I need to use on my instruments because of trial and error. I certainly don't expect every Rickenbacker owner to have my level of OCD, God forbid, but on the same token they shouldn't have to be clairvoyants either.
Just for "sh*ts and giggles", would a repair claim for flaking paint or an intermittent pup be rejected if and instrument came in with strings that exceeded the "now known" factory spec. I would hope not. Perhaps a mention of the risk on the invoice. My early 2011 Jetglo likes the slightly beefier drop D string @ .112 replacing the .105 factory E.
I hadn't thought of my D'Addario XL 45-60-80-107 strings as particularly high in tension at a stated 162.9 pounds but I guess they are in relation to the Ric strings (at 145 pounds), at least. They don't seem to cause any problems for my 1975 4001 anyway. Their 40-60-80-100 would be closer to the Ric set at a stated tension of about 148 pounds.
But I guess when comparing other brands to the Ric strings one would deduct a few pounds from their stated tension load to take into account the slightly shorter scale length of a Rickenbacker 4001/4003...?
antonius wrote:But I guess when comparing other brands to the Ric strings one would deduct a few pounds from their stated tension load to take into account the slightly shorter scale length of a Rickenbacker 4001/4003...?
It's an easy conversion factor: [Your scale length]/[Scale length used to measure tension]. Going from 34'' to 33.25'', it's roughly 0.978.
I've got no dog in this hunt, I'm happy with every Ric I own, but it seems to me that if RIC has done all it will do concerning this bass, JH is only doing his company's public perception a disservice by continuing to comment in this thread.
If you've washed your hands its time to step away from the sink.
"Top 10 Best Bass Players" Austin Music Poll 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010
iamthebassman wrote:I've got no dog in this hunt, I'm happy with every Ric I own, but it seems to me that if RIC has done all it will do concerning this bass, JH is only doing his company's public perception a disservice by continuing to comment in this thread.
If you've washed your hands its time to step away from the sink.
Agreed Ronn, No sense "beating a dead horse" or gritting teeth or excessive shrugging. I'd hate to see anyone accidentally break a tooth or pull a muscle. I'll keep my comments to the instruments progress through it's repair and return to playability. I love a detailed project! Hell, I've been involved with two in my short time here.!! Nothing better than returning a "troubled" instrument to a better state.
