Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Should there be no tail lift at all on a 4003 (sure, ideally there should be none), or is there an acceptable limit ?

Make your RIC a better bass !...... Hear every note ring !.... Hipshot ! .....There is no substitute !

Thanks Barry, but I'm happy with the Rics as they are - mine sound great with a nice low action. It is just that I noticed while polishing them yesterday that the bridge is not completely flush with the body at the tail end - but it isn't much, I'd say around half a millimeter tops

RIC should've kept this design.

"Hi Jeff, Could you outline what you did to get the screws in there? My 4001's lift isn't bad, about a 1/16th or 3/32nds at the end of the tail piece. But just incase - what screw size did you use? Is this the same as the 4003 screw set up? When you drilled the holes in the tail piece did you countersink the them? Is it done with the tail piece on the bass, string tension lowered?... anything else you can think of would be appreciated."

You need a drill and a screw driver ... you can do it with or without strings on it ... first choose 2 good wood screws not too short and not too long ... you can use a 3/4" screw to a neck bolt ... drill 2 holes in the tailpiece big enough for the screws to pass through ... then drill small pilot holes in the wood then with a bigger drill bit drill a shallow depression for the head of the screw to fit into ... then install the screws ... simply screwing them in will flatten down the tailpiece in most cases ... the 2 extra screws are sometimes needed on 4 string basses but they are always needed on 5 and 8 string basses ...

Early 80's 4003's had the 7 hole tailpieces. Tailpiece lift has got to be pretty bad to affect the playability and sound of the bass. They all pretty much lift a little and usually stay there. I've had about 20 or so in my life and have never had to do anything about it, some lifted and some didn't but none were a problem and none got out of hand. I've heard of a few here that did get out of hand, Owen's bass comes to mind, it lifted so high the the strings didn't seat in the bridge, but that is really the only one I remember that really caused a problem, Ric players tend to be kind of anal about things like this. If I have seen it happening on a ric it was usually caused by the med gauge Fender flatwounds I use to use which are like bridge cables. I then changed the strings and no more problem, in fact if I remember right the tailpiece slowly went back down. The bass player from Iron Maiden uses Roto flats and had to have a special thick headstock made so the headstock wouldn't pull forward from the tension of the Rotos, and those are no where near as heavy as Fender med gauge flats.

"Should there be no tail lift at all on a 4003 (sure, ideally there should be none), or is there an acceptable limit ?"

Bob - the lift on a newer 4003 will depend on how tight the screws are into the body. The body route is deeper into the maple than the tailpiece metal is recessed, so if the screws are tightened down how they realy should be, it will lift the tailpiece a bit. It did on mine. I took three 1/4" flat washers and put them where the three screws (low ones) go and it just made up the difference between the tailpiece and the wood of the body. The taillift is now barely noticable. It better joins the tailpiece to the body, too. At the same time, I drilled out the recesses where the bridge adjustment allen screws touch the tailpiece, allowing the allen screws to hit maple, and between those two mods, the bass now sounds richer. Better coupling to the body of the bass.

I can't take credit for this, and I can't remember nor find the thread where the guy who figured this out posted the information. So if he reads this, sorry, and I hope you expound on this.

Thanks for the info John ...
As I said, the lift on mine is tiny, less than half a mm right at the back of the tail. I think I'll leave it well alone (other than to keep an eye on it!)

Thats about what mine is now after the washers.