Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

I don't recall the timing, but Rick's 12 string guitars may have been created and the first three built before they had even heard of The Beatles. I have to go read my source material as it has been quite while since I had done so.

For What It's Worth,

I personally LIKE the ramp to reference the flow of the pickguard line.. just kind of works better aesthetically..< for me >

I started this thread after getting my '83 330. I noticed it's deep ramp then, and it's been something I have paid attention to ever since. I now have a strong preference for the look of a deep dished ramp that's parallel to the pickguard.

Personal preferences aside, it is really too cool to be able to come here and get detailed responses from the people who make RIC's every day. Ben, I really appreciate you(and your dad) taking the time to explain things to us, when you have no obligation to do so.

egosheep wrote:Ben, I really appreciate you(and your dad) taking the time to explain things to us, when you have no obligation to do so.

I second that!!

aceonbass wrote:Since I'm not a guitar player, I hadn't noticed the ramp change. Now that I've looked at it, I gotta say I don't like it as well as the older shape. It no longer follows the curve of the pickguard, and looks rather arbitrary, and almost looks like it's being phased out as a styling que. While slotting the 12 string headstocks all the way through is more for function (a practical evolution of the product) changing the ramp de-emphasises this unique Rickenbacker feature.

What strikes me is that at least from somewhere in 2000 till somewhere in 2007 the ramp did not follow parallel to the scratchplate, then it suddenly starts mutating. From a sales perspective, it saves scrap as the ramp produces less wood to be removed. Is the inside altered to provide more hollow space as well?

Wildberry wrote: From a sales perspective, it saves scrap as the ramp produces less wood to be removed. Is the inside altered to provide more hollow space as well?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the amount of scrap produced is a consideration next to the overall design of what they want the look to be. Removing wood and producing guitars is what they are best at.

I think many people not involved with production utilizing CNC gear has the misconception that you can do whatever you like in the design and the machine will simply reproduce it. Unfortunately tooling, machining times, and other manufacturing details figure greatly into the process. In this case, it has to do with the type of cutter, the articulation of the tooling, and router speeds/feeds that make certain compromises of and alterations to the design expedient.

egosheep wrote:

Wildberry wrote: From a sales perspective, it saves scrap as the ramp produces less wood to be removed. Is the inside altered to provide more hollow space as well?

I could be wrong, but I don't think the amount of scrap produced is a consideration next to the overall design of what they want the look to be. Removing wood and producing guitars is what they are best at.

In every product I've sold there would be value of material thrown away and the costs to have it disposed of in a legal way included in the sales price, so my guess is that will be true of guitars as well.

johnhall wrote:I think many people not involved with production utilizing CNC gear has the misconception that you can do whatever you like in the design and the machine will simply reproduce it.

One machine could technically do it, but then you'd have to switch the tool tips and programme, going from rude to ever finer details, right?