Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

i really like the stock bridge on my cii,but it would have to be reshaped to cover the hole on a 4001/3......and i think the new 4004's have a schaller bridge now,anyway......
.

Two excellent designs that are quite solid and have individual saddle height adjustments are the Warwick/Schaller bridge/tailpiece and even moreso, the Overwater bridge design.

My understanding is that the concept of the new 4003 bridge/tailpiece has already been developed.

I vote HIPSHOT !!

thinneckrick wrote:I vote HIPSHOT !!

I have to agree, that bridge is Bada**!!!

+2

what is the ETA for this bridge redesign? I know that I have heard about it as long as I have been on this forum...just wondering....

It's 2,3,4, and 7 for me.

I am surprised to see that someone picked the last option. In nearly 32 years of experience with Rickenbacker basses I have never heard anyone say that.

The only vote for me is #2. I think the bridge is fine the way it is, but it would be nice to have grooves or indentations near the screws to adjust intonation so it would be easier to slide a screwdriver in there.

I voted for 5 and 6.

rickfan60 wrote:It's 2,3,4, and 7 for me.

I am surprised to see that someone picked the last option. In nearly 32 years of experience with Rickenbacker basses I have never heard anyone say that.

Did you actually vote, as #7 is still (at this post time) at 0?

I too, was very surprised to see a vote for #10!

rickaddict wrote:My main reason for wanting to leave the saddles (mostly) as they are (which I probably should have posted earlier) is tone. I just can't find anything that sounds better to me than my 4001/4003's. I would think that the saddle material on the 4001/4003 would factor into the tone equation. But maybe I'm wrong.

It is true that Rics have good tone out of the box, and my desire for a different bridge never came out of wanting a better tone. I understand this "ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality. However, there are certain functions I wish the bridge had, and I have personal experience with the Hipshot replacement having several of these functions and still sounding cleanly and clearly like a Ric. I use the aluminum bridge. The only tonal difference I can really tell is that there is more bass and sustain, and I think this has to do with the mass of the bridge or its contiguity with the body, not the saddles. The lower action may play a role too. Often there are too many factors for anything to be scientific. I dream of a day when there is a physics lab dedicated solely to intrument science. That would be fascinating, the things that could be figured out with strict scientific method (and the resources to do the research, which would be fairly high, but probably not as costly as getting first gene sequencers online).

One thing I find interesting about the current Ric design is--for better or worse, I don't know--it seems to lack contiguity and expose many more surfaces to open air than you would think. The saddles are really only loosely associated with the bridge surround which is only loosely associated with the tailpiece which is primarily connected to the bass body by screws and has very little contiguity with it compared to other bridge designs that have large surfaces flush to the body. It is ironic then that the Hipshot doesn't sound more different than it does becauase it is completely different in this way. It seems to me that you lose a lot of energy and resonance if there is less contiguity, BUT I am contradicted by the entire history of Rickenbacker basses, which have mostly used this same bridge design and sound very, very good. I do not delude myself into thinking that it is good to reinvent the wheel.

As I have said, though, certain things are lacking for certain players of certain styles. That is all. The Hipshot addresses most of my issues. Of course I want to see what RIC is going to come up with.

+1 to the Overwater bridge being respectable and +1 to extra screws on the stock tailpiece. Those screws don't look bad to me if they help the bass sustain and avoid tailpiece lift.

I think the idea of a radical new design that can be fitted to existing Ricks is fine and the Hipshot bridge has a lot of merit and really should get the Rick seal of approval by now.
A soloution to replacing older faulty/broken or missing bridges etc would be if Rickenbacker allowed a licensed re-build of vintage spec and "modern" bridges to cater for those markets.
It should be possible to market several versions of modern and vintage style bridge if Rickenbacker used a tried and tested manufacturer like Badass,Hipshot etc. A quality specialist parts manufacturer could do all the above under one roof.
I mean that you can get bits for other guitars but trying to replace say just two bits of a vintage Rick bridge is impossible because no one is allowed to make them and the Hipshot modern replacement isnt even a recognised part as far as Rick are concerned.
Its a hardware issue that surely wouldnt detract from the high quality guitar building at Rickenbacker if it was out sourced.
Would it?

I see some of you guys are endorsing a change to a different manufacturers bridge. Why don't you see what the new bridge/tailpiece design will eventually be, before you do that.

This thread does not exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

The padlock is at the ready, just in case this thread really goes off the road.

For the sake of keeping this poll going strong (great results so far, let's increase that sample size!) let's just talk about RIC's possible in-house design. That's what the poll is about after all. It's also true that it's going OT to talk about outsourced manufacturing. So please respect what Joey said and keep my poll going...