Chunky necks...

jaybic · Post by **jaybic** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:43 am

This is also being discussed in the "New and Blue..." thread, but I seem to be in the minority in that I actually enjoy my '04 4003's chunky neck. It fills my hand up nicely. I do have long fingers, maybe that's why. But I recently tried my P-Bass and was surprised how thin the neck felt. I know it's all perception, but I do like the Louiseville Slugger feel so far.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:54 am

The thick wooden necks change with the weather too. Seasonal adjustments are inevitable, especially if you live in a temperate zone.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 9:57 am

Given the way 4003 necks are constructed, making them thicker is the easiest way to make them stronger. Making them stronger and keeping the thin profile would likely take quite a bit of re-engineering. More saw cuts and more laminations would add cost and complexity to the process, perhaps too much. All things considered, the price of a new Rickenbacker is amazingly low. This is especially true when you consider the high-priced **** that Fender and others are cranking out these days.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:27 am

Thank you Ted ,i was trying to make the same point that would be the only logical explanation for a thicker neck,the other point i was trying to make as i was told and agree with is the rods could be larger therefor better strength and stability.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:40 am

The truss rod system is close to Gibson two totally different designs and shorter scale on the Gibson

No, it's not just close, it's the very same system. Gibson has made long scale basses starting with the first edition Thunderbird in 1964 and has had always at least one long scale model in production since, and the majority of them have mahogany necks which are certainly not as rigid as maple. They are no more prone to neck problems or truss rod operation problems than Gibson guitars.

Ric bass necks do overhang the body more than Fender and Gibson designs. Whether or not that has anything to do with neck warp or twist problems is anybody's guess. But I don't think anyone here has really presented any evidence that modern Rics --thick or thin -- are prone to neck problems. Sure, there are a few cases, you'll find that in any production model. But for all we know, it could be much lower than the industry average. We're not privy to warranty claim information from Ric and other manufacturers.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 10:48 am

as i was told and agree with is the rods could be larger therefor better strength and stability.

You were told wrong. AFAIK nobody in the industry uses larger diameter truss rods, and most of them only use one.

And I don't think you understand their function. The purpose of these traditional truss rods is to counteract the pull of the strings. They aren't stiffening or stabilizing devices like carbon fiber rods.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:25 am

Dave, the current system you can adjust the neck with full tension on the strings my system you set the neck first then snug up the rods my rods alone will not move the neck,current system adjusting the rods with full tension will move the neck ,if you used alarger rod what do you get a stronger more stable neck therefor the diameter of the neck[profile] can be smaller.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:45 am

Wow! I didn't think this post would generate such controversy!

Maybe I just don't play bass as much anymore, but my hand isn't the biggest and I find the neck to be not that comfy.

I may just have to sell it and save up for a C.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 11:57 am

John, i had a v63, the neck wasn't as small as i liked - thought of doing the same thing-if you like the bass and it is worth the expense to you do it.i also find the neck on a c64 to be very comfy.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:09 pm

I think I have a Gibson rod in my scrap box. I will pull it out later and measure it.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:29 pm

Kenneth, I don't know what the exact measurements of a c neck are, and it would be expensive with the refinish needed and all.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:35 pm

The modern RIC rods work just like Gibson, Fender, and several other manufacturer's rods. The rod channel is curved front to back. The ends of the rod are closer to the fingerboard than the center of the rod. The low spot in the center is sometimes called the focus. The focus is usually around the 6th or 7th fret for the greatest leverage. When the rod nuts are tightened the rod straightens out. As it straightens it pushes against the focus which levers the neck back away from the strings. Dave is right that the RIC and Gibson systems are the same. They use exactly the same principle but not necessarily the same materials. I think the Gibson rod is larger in diameter. It has been a while, but I think Gibson uses a 3/8" rod nut where RIC uses a 1/4". I will check this against the parts I have on hand.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:44 pm

I know the adjustment nuts are 1/4" i don't know what Gibson is.

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:12 pm

Gibson's nuts are 5/16 inch.

bottom4 · Post by **bottom4** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 1:45 pm

The neck on my 85 V63 is ultra slim with a nice flat profile. For those of us with an 86 Shadow, you know what I mean!