Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 5:17 am
by 86kubicki
Try something with a .095 E string. Although it seems that some necks can take the stress from a set with a standard .105 E string, it does seem to vary from instrument to instrument. I have a '78 4001 that gets a bit cranky with anything higher than .095 .
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:26 am
by chefothefuture
Ken-
Did you check the fit of the rods?
It's pretty critical that they're fairly snug against
the top and bottom of the channel.
If the fit is loose even a slight amount, the rods will
separate and not work.
Replacing the active portion of the rod with a heavier
stock works in the most extreme cases.
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:32 am
by ken_swearingen
The Rods seemed pretty flimsy I thought,when I pulled them out they were straight,I bent them really easily so when I put them in I would not be surprised if they straightened out again.
A heavier Rod would most definitely help.
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:34 am
by ken_swearingen
I hate to say It but, What a stupid design!!!
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 6:54 am
by wints
I have to say that from my experience the 60's basses really don't like anything more than a .095.
For me, with a light playing style and low action, means that anything more is too much of a compromise.
The rod design along with the delicate necks practically makes this choice for you....
Posted: Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:04 am
by chefothefuture
The design is actually sound IF the right procedures are followed. But like any fine racing machine, it requires
patience and tinkering( said by a Jaguar enthusiast...)
In fact, the New design when used in the 12 strings has
been ugly in my part of the world- the wood compresses
at the heal end and the neck never stays adjusted. My 97
381/12 had the nuts come out the other side!
For strings, I use Blue Steel 45-100 with no trouble at all.
They seem to have a lower tension the regular nickel or
stainless(rebar has less tension the regular stainless...).
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:22 am
by headbanger
This arching of the rods is pointless because of how you must bend them to get them back in. This defeats the purpose. The best bet for more backpressure is a thicker bar that won't bend the threaded rod so much.
The two centre strings are the highest tension so try a 55 and a 70 if you can bear it. New Rics come with a 55 but not the 70. On the 1999 I use nickel 45 55 70 95, a hand picked set. I did try 35/40 for the G & 90 for E but they were just too light.
JH mentioned somewhere that chromes are are the least tension followed by nickel. I chose the nickel for fret life reasons.
Ken, with the strings off & the rods undone is the neck straight or does it have a forward bow?
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 5:32 am
by ken_swearingen
With the strings off the neck is staight!
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:23 am
by headbanger
With the rods undone?
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 6:49 am
by ken_swearingen
Dont know! need to check that one.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:05 am
by leftybass
FWIW, I've found that with the strings OFF on my older basses ('72s) a ever-so-slight back bow has been beneficial to the action. I use pretty light strings on all of them, .040-.095 with no issues.
Posted: Thu Dec 01, 2005 1:13 pm
by ken_swearingen
I just ordered some Rotos[35-85]and some elixirs[40-95]I'm going to do some experimenting.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:13 am
by rhampshire
My '72JG is marginal with stainless .105's, but I tune D-G-C-F...
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:58 pm
by dale_fortune
In a few days I will do a step by step explanation with digi pix on how to remove/rethread/arc/reinstall and set up your truss rods and adjust them for maximum stability. I will show various things I have learned over the years that helps the truss rods to work to their optimum performance.
Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:29 pm
by ken_swearingen
Cool!!We all need to take note.