Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

iiipopes wrote:

aceonbass wrote:What's more, once you drop the Hipshot saddles all the was down, they tend to rattle and slide back and forth.

Cassius actually had to inset his Hipshot into the body for this very reason.

That's correct, although I believe a stock bridge would have also needed the same work in order to maintain some reasonable break angle over the saddles and still have low action. I'm really pleased with the result.

I agree with what has been said about the Hipshot bridge--if you just stick it on your Ric and expect it work well with low action, you may be in for a sad surprise. It needs a good break angle over each saddle to hold them in place.

I have an 89 4003. It's got a black 7 screw tailpiece with no issues whatsoever! It does however interfere with my palm-muting. I've been considering the Hipshot bridge. My bass already weighs a ton, does the Hipshot add much weight?

i guess i am either lucky,or the fact that my bass is set-neck may have something to do with it (?),but my experience with the hipshot bridge could not be better. i do not like high action,but neither do i go for the "strings laying on the fretboard" approach, and i have no rattles with the hipshot. If you get the aluminum version of the hipshot (i did),the weight is very similar to the original equipment,and i think the design vastly improves the overall body contact for a great tonal transfer.

+ 1 On the Hipshot over an All Parts.

All parts rick replacement vs. vintage rick bridge....Hmmnnnnn.The original aluminum sandcast ones are by far the best..Its finding one!That being the case..If your old rick is still able to take a stock bridge,the allparts stock rick repro is the best!Far better than the stock bridge rick uses today.The bridge to base fit is nice and tight.Just like the early sandcast bridge.Also the alloys that they use are better.They dont tail lift like a stock rick bridge.They are also half the price.. As far as the all parts bridge that was mentioned.They are taller than a stock rick bridge.So if you have an older bass with any upward pitch to your neck,you will not be able to get the action down.I have modified them before by actually removing the saddle inserts,and cutting string slots in the saddle itself! It Will work.but.....

I'd be surprised if pure zinc is used to cast these parts. Nearly all die cast zinc uses some sort of an alloy, usually consisting of zinc, aluminum, copper and sometimes magnesium. Which alloy is used depends on a lot of factors including strength, wear resistance, etc.

Further reading if you want:
http://www.metalcastingdesign.com/content/view/110/314/

woodyng wrote:i guess i am either lucky,or the fact that my bass is set-neck may have something to do with it (?),but my experience with the hipshot bridge could not be better.

That could have everything to do with it. When the neck was glued in it was probably shimmed for the proper angle like a luthier would do, and this kind of joint isn't as likely to move around over time (it would seem) as a neck-through joint with a big chunk of wood removed from it for a neck pickup. That's why my bass needed a countersinking regardless of what bridge was on it--I had the same problems as a stock bridge.

If Hipshot would make some small design changes they could greatly improve their aftermarket Ric bridge. I won't get into it here, but it would be simple enough for them.

I have done a lot of bridge and tailpiece schlepping over the years and my conclusion is that if you can make the stock bridge work for you, that is best. However, the Hipshot bridge has certain advantages and in the right situation (like a bass where you have to countersink the tailpiece anyway) it can actually work to its full potential. The Allparts bridge is something I would categorically stay away from; for its price, there's no way they're using as good of materials as RIC, and Dane correctly pointed out that RIC has done some under-the-hood reinforcing to their in-house part in recent years (although that doesn't do much to save the poor C64s with only 3 screws holding the tailpiece down).

Its not so much an alloy issue as a casting one.After a typed that last post i was thinking the same thing.I stand corrected Dane lol.The casting is what makes the all parts bridge stronger.If you turn a stock rick and an allparts upside down you will notice a world of difference.The rick is hollow in the back where as,The allparts has length wise ribbing wich holds up under string pressure.As far as the plating.Tail lift would bother me far more.And at 50 bucks for an allparts,if the plating issue bothered me that much ,i'd just buy a new one Has there been a recent design change in the stock rick bridge?

2ndHand72Rick wrote:Has there been a recent design change in the stock rick bridge?

Pics of '60s/'70s/ current type of tailpieces. Show us a photo of the underside of an Allparts tailpiece for comparison, please.

haven't noticed much difference between stock Ric and All Parts bridges myself, in fit or finish. had one in use for 2+ years with no tail lift yet.
never noticed a height problem either, but my experience here is limited to only a couple of basses.

I gotta pay closer attention I suppose, never really looked at them that close.

jps wrote:

2ndHand72Rick wrote:Has there been a recent design change in the stock rick bridge?

Pics of '60s/'70s/ current type of tailpieces.

Tailpieces_Bottom_3981_800.jpg

Show us a photo of the underside of an Allparts tailpiece for comparison, please.

I've got one at work, so I'll check it tomorrow. from what I remember it looks like the middle one underneath (70's one?).