Page 2 of 3
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 2:31 pm
by badeggs
2112 wrote:I cant believe that Rickenbacker thought that those cheezy Grovers were actually good tuners. I received my 4080/12 with those on it.
Talk about UGLY and a horrible gear ratio. Those tuning machines were ****. I guess they only serve an "OEM" spec., because I dont think that there would be a whole lot of people clammoring to the nearest guitar store to buy up those as replacement tuners for their basses.
Wow. Never heard anyone describe Grovers as "cheezy" before...
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 4:23 pm
by 2112
Here's a set of Grovers that I do not consider "cheezy".
http://www.wdmusic.co.uk/product/TITAN_ ... HROME_145C
These are waaaayyy better quality than the ones that Rickenbacker used.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 5:03 pm
by teeder
wints wrote:John,
My Dec 68 has Klusons,
but my Feb 69 has Grovers. I think Kev's 4000 bass, one after mine, does too.
Yep!
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:04 pm
by rickfan60
2112 wrote:I cant believe that Rickenbacker thought that those cheezy Grovers were actually good tuners. I received my 4080/12 with those on it.
Talk about UGLY and a horrible gear ratio.
Those tuning machines were ****.
I guess they only serve an "OEM" spec., because I dont think that there would be a whole lot of people clammoring to the nearest guitar store to buy up those as replacement tuners for their basses.
Grover DID make a better "wavy" tuning machine, but they dont fit on the Ricks headstock. Unless you're Geddy Lee, and somehow he got them to fit on HIS bass. There is a reason to upgrade the tuning machines that come with a stock Rickenbacker bass. Probably the same reason that the bridges get replaced.
The gear ratio is only slightly lower than the Klusons. 18:1 versus 20:1 and the post diameter is smaller so you would not even notice the difference. I agree the wavy keys do not look as nice as the flat ones but the tuners are not exactly ****. I find them to be smooth and easy to adjust.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 8:29 pm
by Lost Coyotes
rickfan60 wrote:
... but the tuners are not exactly ****. I find them to be smooth and easy to adjust.
I do, too...and they don't have that cheap feel of looseness or sloppiness that I've found with many other machines.
The Grovers I have, on three 4001 - both wavy and flat - feel tight, close-tolerance and quality made - to me. And none of mine have exploded, either.
I guess there must be a difference in some of them, to explain how wide the "opinion gap" is on these.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 10:59 pm
by 2112
OK, let me clairify this. The Klusons tha came with my 1980 BG 4001 and the ones on my 4001CS are just fine.
But I hold my opinion on those Grovers.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:27 pm
by badeggs
Thomas, not those "droopy-eye" Grovers, man I hate those things...I can see your point if you've experienced the early 80's wavys, which I guess you would on a 4080. It's well-documented that those weren't always as quality as the early-70s ones. As with Mike, the early ones have never given me trouble, exploded, bound-up, or anything *knock on wood*. I love 'em...but to each his own!
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:04 am
by walker
Just adding to the consensus - my '68 and '64 basses have the Nickel Klusons w/ the slotted post screw.
I also have the newer Wavey Grovers, the 'Titans' on my '79 4001V63. LOVE those tuners! Solid as the old Klusons, and way bitchen' style-wise. I
did have to have the post holes re-routed wider on the headstock, but not a concern on this particular bass.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 1:35 am
by johnallg
Here's a question - who made the mid-70s nickle reverse tune machines? Some of the set on my 4001 are sloppy loose and thus can be aggravating to tune. I have a set of new current RIC Schallers I could put on but so far have resisted in the interest of correctness. Input?
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:56 am
by 2112
walker wrote:Just adding to the consensus - my '68 and '64 basses have the Nickel Klusons w/ the slotted post screw.
I also have the newer Wavey Grovers, the 'Titans' on my '79 4001V63. LOVE those tuners! Solid as the old Klusons, and way bitchen' style-wise. I
did have to have the post holes re-routed wider on the headstock, but not a concern on this particular bass.
How did you fit
those Grovers on your headstock?
I have a set of those and the post isn't long enough for the nut to grab more than a half of a turn. The nut seems to be too short to grab enough threads.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:59 am
by badeggs
johnallg wrote:Here's a question - who made the mid-70s nickle reverse tune machines? Some of the set on my 4001 are sloppy loose and thus can be aggravating to tune.
They're not all bad, but some of those reverse keys have terrible action. I always wondered myself if those were genuine Klusons or something else...
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:38 am
by rickaddict
johnallg wrote:Here's a question - who made the mid-70s nickle reverse tune machines? Some of the set on my 4001 are sloppy loose and thus can be aggravating to tune. I have a set of new current RIC Schallers I could put on but so far have resisted in the interest of correctness. Input?
Have you tightened the post screw on the back? It's an entirely different design than the newer open-backed Schallers. They look the same, but work differently. The Shaller's post screw can be socked down tight; but with the Kluson's post screw the more you tighten it, the more the gear binds against the back plate.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:04 pm
by walker
Thomas - maybe there's a variation in the length of the posts between the set I've got and what you've had. I don't have any problem fitting string winds on mine. As you can see, I've got an average of 3 winds per post. I could probably go 4 if I had cut the strings that long. Also, I've taken up about a mm of depth by putting thin pieces of vinyl tile on the backs of each tuner as a buffer, serving the same function as the plastic pieces that came with the Klusons (Shallers? whatever they are) from the '70s. Another variant that may come into play is the headstock of this particular bass being relatively thin - exactly 5/8" thick.
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 2:32 pm
by Mr. Meaty
Never thought of using tile for shimming . Cool idea.
The box back Grovers really are great tuners. They just have an unfortunate structural flaw.Most that ive seen over time have varing degrees of this flaw. The soft metal pins that hold them together loosen up over time . I love the feel of the gear ratio in them . smooth .
Re: 1965/66 - Were Wavy Grovers used?
Posted: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:35 pm
by 2112
Mark, thanks for those detailed photos.
The problem that I have with installing those is with that top nut that "clamps" the tuner to the headstock. The length of the shaft on the ones that I have is not deep enough to grab the threads on the tuning machine that you would install by putting it trough the hole from the back of the headstock. I might be able to get one thread around if I dont use that washer, but then the nut would grind and chip the paint right off.
I dont know. I dont get it.
