Simple cure for bridge lift?

[Gilmourisgod]

Probably a dumb question:
Why not install threaded brass inserts tapped for machine screws to fasten the bridge down, instead of relying on wood screws? My old G &L bass had brass inserts for every screw into the body, including the battery cover! I realize this is the Temple of Rick, but come on, for the price we have a right to expect something better, particularly something that wouldn't change the classic appearance one iota. I'm in the market for a 4003, and that's the first thing I'll do if it hasn't already been incorporated into new production. Rick basses are my first love (79' jetglo stupidly sold in my "Jaco Wannabe" days) , but if there are well-known design or production flaws, they ought to be remedied. There, my rant is concluded, back to mooning over outrageously overpriced Rick basses on E-bay.

[JakeK]

viewtopic.php?f=13&t=161788

[aceonbass]

Alexander, The two screws at the rear of the tailpiece should come back, but since they probably won't, the threaded insert, ala Alembic, is s good idea. I actually put threaded brass 4-40 inserts in the body of my 2010 4003 for every single screw on the bass, except the tailpiece screws, which I will eventually do.

[weemac]

There is no issue with screws pulling out as such...
It's just that the tailpiece bends....
Extra screws would help but reverting to whatever aluminium was used in the 60s would solve it too..

Ensuring that the route below the bridge is not too deep helps greatly too!

Eden.

[Gilmourisgod]

Well, it's obvious that Rick is aware of the problem since they have added two more screws to the back of the bridge, still inexcusable on an instrument this expensive. Have the added screws solved the problem? John Hall, hope you are reading this, time to upgrade/update the old bridge design!I hope you replaced the bridge in that horrendous bridge lift photo for free.

[bosco64]

Well, it's obvious that Rick is aware of the problem since they have added two more screws to the back of the bridge, still inexcusable on an instrument this expensive. Have the added screws solved the problem? John Hall, hope you are reading this, time to upgrade/update the old bridge design!I hope you replaced the bridge in that horrendous bridge lift photo for free.

Yep, I'm sure that he's reading this and he's probably wondering why the hell he bothers to contribute to the RRF anymore...sigh...

[jdogric12]

Well, it's obvious that Rick is aware of the problem since they have added two more screws to the back of the bridge, still inexcusable on an instrument this expensive. Have the added screws solved the problem? John Hall, hope you are reading this, time to upgrade/update the old bridge design!I hope you replaced the bridge in that horrendous bridge lift photo for free.

Yep, I'm sure that he's reading this and he's probably wondering why the hell he bothers to contribute to the RRF anymore...sigh...

+1

[Gilmourisgod]

If John Hall reads this forum, I'm sure it's to keep his finger on the pulse of his customers, crucial to any successful business. I can't imagine he'd be the least bit upset by reading a little constructive criticism. One downside of a highly popular design is that it gets set in stone, nearly fetishised, warts and all, by a loyal customer base. If the original Rick bass bridge was updated to make it more easily adjustable for string height, string spacing, intonation, and beefed up to prevent this string lift problem, there would be no market for the Hipshot replacement. In my Rick heydays (late 70's through early 80's) a lot of people, like Geddy Lee for instance, were replacing the bridges on the 4001 with Badass II's for exactly that reason. If I do get a 4003, I may go the Hipshot route anyway (sacrilidge!) if it's the same old bridge design. C'mon John, weigh in!

[JakeK]

Yep, I'm sure that he's reading this and he's probably wondering why the hell he bothers to contribute to the RRF anymore...sigh...

+1

+2

[deaconblues]

Nothing wrong with criticism as long as it's polite, IMO.

That being said, I think that this is another one of those "beating a dead horse" threads.

[cassius987]

Like Eden said the probably is not the screws lifting out, so threaded inserts really won't help much. The company put two extra screws (total of 7) in to fix it but took them out later on because they were not popular with people on an aesthetic level. So the market decided which tailpiece is used today, as it were.

I'm not a fan of the stock 4003 bridge either really (though I can't say it's because of tailpiece lift, nor can I say that I love seeing people grouse about it on the internet for the hundred-thousandth time as if that's going to get anything done). If you really want change to happen you can always vote with your wallet and buy a 4004, or a different sort of bass entirely, instead. That speaks volumes compared to 'net whining. Remember when Sterling Ball offered to make a special run of basses with wider string spacing because the EBMM forum was full of people crying about that, and then he couldn't get more than a half dozen orders? That was a great example of why manufacturer's really are better off not listening to the 'net sometimes. Badgering John Hall to argue with you on a public forum doesn't seem too polite to me either.

Finally, the obsession with tail lift seems blown out of proportion to the problems it actually causes in my experience. Most 5-screw tailpieces exhibit a very small amount of it that does nothing to detract from the instrument. Then there are the really bad examples like the power coated tailpieces and the 3-screw C64 tailpieces that actually do warrant some upsetness. But worrying about the fraction of a mm lift on most of the instruments out there with 5-screw tailpieces seems a bit silly to me. I have never seen a new 4003 with bad tail lift. Some? Sure. But not enough to worry about.

[GIBrat51]

My cure for tail lift?
1. Make sure all the tailpiece screws are good and tight.
2. Don't use bridge cables for strings.
Both my '73 4001 and '01 4003 have exactly the same amount of tail lift; just barely the thickness of a credit card. No problem.

[Gilmourisgod]

Sounds like I hit a nerve with some people! "Net whining?" Picking an argument with John Hall? Don't recall doing either, but whatever. I was honestly hoping he'd chime in with his thoughts, as he occasionally does when the subject interests him. I understand all about market forces driving them back to the original bridge design. If we choose aesthetics over functionality, particularly when the bridge shortcomings are so easily remedied without changing any of the visual appeal, we only do ourselves a dis-service as customers. Don't get me wrong, I was literally obsessed with my 79' 4001, and deeply regret selling it, but it had it's drawbacks, as anyone who owns one knows. The bridge looks great, but it's a PITA to adjust, and the pickups are prone to hum. The frets were too soft for roundwounds, which nearly everyone (at least everyone who wanted to sound like Lee or Squire) put on immediately after purchase. I was always willing to overlook those drawbacks because it sounded so good, and the sheer sculptural beauty of it made me want to play it. I've played and owned all kinds of basses over my 30+ years playing, and have come back to wanting a Rick through my son's eyes, he's also an aspiring bass player and loves the Chris Squire tone. Enough said. Saving my pennies for a new 4003 Jetglo!

[johnhall]

I was honestly hoping he'd chime in with his thoughts, as he occasionally does when the subject interests him.

Sure, I'll chime in. This topic does not interest me. Satisfied?

It's already been discussed to death here and elsewhere.

[Gilmourisgod]

Eminently satisfied Mr. Hall