Chunky necks...

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:49 pm

5/16" that's huge.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:59 pm

Here is a size comparison. My caliper is not handy at the moment but an eyeball measurement against my engineer's ruler says that the Gibson rod (top) is 5/32" and the RIC rod is 3/32".

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:14 pm

what is the material difference? the Gibson looks pretty tough to bend,do you think putting a Gibson size rod in a Ric would help the stability of the neck or hinder adjust ability there would be two,it could actually put undo stress on the neck too if they are two stiff.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:28 pm

They can't be direcly compared. Even though they do the same basic job, they are engineered differently. The RIC rods perform a more sophisticated function. They do more than just counter the pull of the strings. They can acually adjust out a certain amount of twist by applying an axial load to the neck. Single rod systems cannot counter twist. As for the smaller size of RIC rods. Having two makes up for the smaller diameter.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 6:58 am

As the rod gets bigger, you have to compensate by either making the neck thicker or making the arc of bow less, otherwise the rod would appear out the back of the neck. The neck thickness is obvious, while the arc of bow is directly related to the ability to adjust the neck, so it's all just about balancing the compromise within an acceptable range.

In the case of dual rods, they both can't be in the center at the same time, further limiting the compromises between arc and diameter. However, two rods spaced more uniformly through the structure is a far more reliable and useful design, in our opinion.

The rod material itself requires some compromise; a hard rod will hold the threads somewhat better but it also raises the resonant frequency for the same degree of adjustment. A more mild rod, as we chose to use, tends to keep resonance out of the tuning range of the guitar for more balanced sustain across the board.

We've repaired some guitars modified by people who use a hardened rod and some notes- those resonant to the rod- sustain forever, while others are dead, dead, dead. The next time you adjust these, they probably turn slightly easier but then the sustained notes move elsewhere, whereas the more mild rods rarely get into the guitar's range and are more dampened by the softness anyway.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:17 am

Thanks John. Is the thicker neck profile a response to changing player taste?

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:17 am

See john, were learning we go through the same process you guy's go through push thing's around discuss them, compare ,come up with scenario's and then conclusion

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:43 pm

Yes, it's been an interesting discussion.

Ken, I'm aware your bass is an earlier one and I'm also aware of the differences in the old and new systems. In either case, my point is that truss rod systems are designed to adjust the neck properly, not to act as structural supports like the glued-in steel beams in Warmoth bass necks.

5/16" is the hex adjustment nut size for Gibson rods, not the rod size. The rods are 3/16" and threaded 10-32 at the ends. They definitely can be bent, they're mild steel. Looks to me like each Ric rod is slightly smaller, like maybe 5/32", but I'm not going to partially pull one just to find out.

I guess it's comforting to to know that it's possible for a rod to be too thick and too stiff to work properly.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:46 pm

And to get back to the original topic, I do like medium to thick necks. I can't play thin flat necks without my hand cramping. But having a comfortable back profile is just as important to me as the actual thickness.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 2:55 pm

(I guess it's comforting to to know that it's possible for a rod to be too thick and too stiff to work properly. )

LOL!

jps · Post by **jps** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:36 pm

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:04 pm

I still think a larger rod in Rickenbacker's case would be beneficial it makes for perfect sense i don't agree Dave i think your rod dimensions are not correct i was merly admitted with a larger rod it might hinder adjust ability [my rod is thick and stiff and work's just fine]sorry to hear about your problem.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:38 pm

I have never seen a post '84 Rick with a broken rod. If they really were undersized, there would be Ricks with broken rods littering the landscape, no? A few broken rods might be evidence to to support the theory but it just has not been the case. The diameters that Dave listed match the RIC and Gibson rods that I have here in front of me.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:07 am

Ken, I guarantee you the Gibson rod diameter and thread are correct. I've put the calipers to the diameter. You can buy replacement cone shaped Gibson nuts with that internal thread from the supply houses.

By doing a google search for cached pages, I found this archived quote from Mark Arnquist on May 6, 2002, in a thread titled 4001/4003 Truss Rods: "The 'NEW' (since 1984 ) truss rods are one piece of 3/16" cold rolled steel (this is what everyone else uses at least in the USA)."

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Thu Mar 03, 2005 6:12 am

And to add what Ted said, if they were undersized, you would be hearing about Rics that couldn't be adjusted for proper relief. Whatever the exact size -- and I'm guessing Ted means the Ric rods are 5/32" each -- they're doing the job they were designed for.