Bridge lift, is it bad?
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
ken_swearingen
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2298
- Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 6:00 pm
-
rickengeezer
- Junior Member
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:00 am
Well, I just took the bridge off my 1999 MG 4003s5 (which came with the extra screws) to get a precise measurement as to where the extra holes should go in the black tailpiece for the white 1995 S5. Lo and behold, the tailpieces are definately different in manufacture; the 1999 has MUCH more metal in the side rails back where the strings go (and the lift occurs). The '99 version has the extra screws, the beefier metal, and no lift, while the '95 has no extra screws, thin metal, and bad lift...meaning that the company did seem to address this issue somewhere between '95 and '99, at least for the 5-stringers, where the problem would be particularly bad. I haven't actually done the drilling; I think I will take both bridges to a machine shop that has a drill press, as I don't really trust my talents with a hand drill on this.
In the process of tinkering with this and doing a little trim-swap, I also decided that the white S5 would keep its black trim and the MG keep its standard white/chrome trim. I had thought about reversing them but I think I want the white bass to "yellow" a bit more, to make it look like a 5-string version of CS model. It has yellowed some, but not enough for the white trim to stand out the way I'd like it. Given the type of places I tend to play, I figure the cigarette smoke will yellow it nicely before long!
In the process of tinkering with this and doing a little trim-swap, I also decided that the white S5 would keep its black trim and the MG keep its standard white/chrome trim. I had thought about reversing them but I think I want the white bass to "yellow" a bit more, to make it look like a 5-string version of CS model. It has yellowed some, but not enough for the white trim to stand out the way I'd like it. Given the type of places I tend to play, I figure the cigarette smoke will yellow it nicely before long!
-
rickaddict
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6163
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am
Hey Les-
I'm surprised reading this thread that your 1995 S5 doesn't have the 2 extra screws. I have an '89 S5 and a 2000 S5. Both have the 2 extra screws and hence, no tail lift. Both are original. But both have chrome trim. To my knowledge I've never seen an S5 without the two extra holes. At first I thought maybe someone put an aftermarket tailpiece or a modified 4003 tailpiece on yours. But if you took your tailpiece off, and didn't see the two extra holes in the body then I guess not!
Has anybody else ever seen an S5 without the two extra holes?
I'm surprised reading this thread that your 1995 S5 doesn't have the 2 extra screws. I have an '89 S5 and a 2000 S5. Both have the 2 extra screws and hence, no tail lift. Both are original. But both have chrome trim. To my knowledge I've never seen an S5 without the two extra holes. At first I thought maybe someone put an aftermarket tailpiece or a modified 4003 tailpiece on yours. But if you took your tailpiece off, and didn't see the two extra holes in the body then I guess not!
Has anybody else ever seen an S5 without the two extra holes?
Play what you love, love what you play!
-
rickaddict
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6163
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 7:46 am
-
jwr2
-
rickengeezer
- Junior Member
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:00 am
You know, Jeff (T, not R), after looking closely at these two 4003s5 tailpieces, I think "modified 4003 tailpiece" describes them perfectly...but I think the Rickenbacker Co. did the "modifications" at the factory! Especially the "thinner" black one (which had the lift)--it seemed to have a variety of spots in its design where holes might have been drilled, so I suspect that these were sort of one-size-fits-all tailpieces.
I will keep you all posted on my "lift removal" program; I'm getting some nice professional beveled holes put in by a local machine shop, and I've routed out some scrap wood to screw the tailpiece to in an effort to straighten it out. The guy at the machine shop offered some suggestions on how to do it "gently" so as not to crack the tailpiece or the finish.
I will keep you all posted on my "lift removal" program; I'm getting some nice professional beveled holes put in by a local machine shop, and I've routed out some scrap wood to screw the tailpiece to in an effort to straighten it out. The guy at the machine shop offered some suggestions on how to do it "gently" so as not to crack the tailpiece or the finish.
-
rickengeezer
- Junior Member
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:00 am
Bridge de-lifting now complete. It cost me $20, but the machine shop put in some nice beveled holes in the tailpiece, using my other 4003s5 tailpiece as a model for the precise hole locations. The machine shop made certain to use the perpendicular for the holes as it would be AFTER the lift was removed, rather than as I gave it to them. The holes ended up with a polished steel look that would have looked nice with the chrome tailpiece; since mine was black I dabbed some flat black enamel in the recessed area and it looked the way it should have looked when it left the factory!
I then removed the lift as follows. First, I drilled mounting holes in the routed scrap wood, using the model 4003s5 tailpiece so that the new screws would pull to the desired final location. I then attached the target bridge to the wood using the 5 stock screws. I then began sinking the screws in the two new holes, using 2 1.5" DECK screws at the recommendation of the machine shop, as these screws have a lot of pull behind them. Alternating tightening on these screws, I would get them to where they were snug, and then I put the tailpiece (attached to the board) out in the Texas sun to warm it up. Every 15 minutes or so, I would tighten up all the screws, putting a little more tension into the deck screws each time. After about 90 minutes, the bridge was perfectly flush with the wood, just the way it was supposed to be. Then, using my other 4003s5 as a guide to the depth of the holes for the rear two screws (about 1/2"), I drilled (gulp) the two new holes into the bass and mounted the tailpiece. In case anyone else does this, the stock screws for those two rear holes are 1" #6 oval head Phillips screws...they are a bit longer than the other 5 screws that attach the tailpiece.
I then restrung the bass with factory-gauge (D'Addario nickel) strings, and in the process noticed that the strings that came on the bass looked like bridge cables...no idea the precise gauge, but WAY heavier than the rather light factory strings for the s5. These strings from the previous owner were probably responsible for both the bridge lift and the rather poor action on the bass when it arrived. My advice...if you want to try a heavy gauge string on your Ric, you had better have the tailpiece with the extra screws.
Now, after all this the bass plays much better, but I am still not entirely happy with the action in the upper ranges of the neck. There is no relief in the neck, it is straight as an arrow (nice slim neck for a 4003 series, by the way, slimmer than my other 4003s5), the bridge is all the way down, and there is no fret buzz anywhere. In fact, it seems like I've had this experience with my last few 4003s...I can't seem to get the bridge as low as I would like. Actually, the best action of any of my 7 Ric basses is my 1973 4001 that has the Badass II installed...which of course has individual saddle height adjustment. So I'm contemplating strategies. Has anyone tried to lower the action by doing a little filing on the bridge saddles? I'm not sure how much room I would gain by doing so, but the notches on the saddles of the s5 are quite shallow as they are now. Since the bridge is already all the way down, I figure I can always compensate by raising it if it has too much of an effect, but I suspect it wouldn't do much at all. So, I need input: filing saddles to adjust action--good idea, bad idea, or waste of time?
I then removed the lift as follows. First, I drilled mounting holes in the routed scrap wood, using the model 4003s5 tailpiece so that the new screws would pull to the desired final location. I then attached the target bridge to the wood using the 5 stock screws. I then began sinking the screws in the two new holes, using 2 1.5" DECK screws at the recommendation of the machine shop, as these screws have a lot of pull behind them. Alternating tightening on these screws, I would get them to where they were snug, and then I put the tailpiece (attached to the board) out in the Texas sun to warm it up. Every 15 minutes or so, I would tighten up all the screws, putting a little more tension into the deck screws each time. After about 90 minutes, the bridge was perfectly flush with the wood, just the way it was supposed to be. Then, using my other 4003s5 as a guide to the depth of the holes for the rear two screws (about 1/2"), I drilled (gulp) the two new holes into the bass and mounted the tailpiece. In case anyone else does this, the stock screws for those two rear holes are 1" #6 oval head Phillips screws...they are a bit longer than the other 5 screws that attach the tailpiece.
I then restrung the bass with factory-gauge (D'Addario nickel) strings, and in the process noticed that the strings that came on the bass looked like bridge cables...no idea the precise gauge, but WAY heavier than the rather light factory strings for the s5. These strings from the previous owner were probably responsible for both the bridge lift and the rather poor action on the bass when it arrived. My advice...if you want to try a heavy gauge string on your Ric, you had better have the tailpiece with the extra screws.
Now, after all this the bass plays much better, but I am still not entirely happy with the action in the upper ranges of the neck. There is no relief in the neck, it is straight as an arrow (nice slim neck for a 4003 series, by the way, slimmer than my other 4003s5), the bridge is all the way down, and there is no fret buzz anywhere. In fact, it seems like I've had this experience with my last few 4003s...I can't seem to get the bridge as low as I would like. Actually, the best action of any of my 7 Ric basses is my 1973 4001 that has the Badass II installed...which of course has individual saddle height adjustment. So I'm contemplating strategies. Has anyone tried to lower the action by doing a little filing on the bridge saddles? I'm not sure how much room I would gain by doing so, but the notches on the saddles of the s5 are quite shallow as they are now. Since the bridge is already all the way down, I figure I can always compensate by raising it if it has too much of an effect, but I suspect it wouldn't do much at all. So, I need input: filing saddles to adjust action--good idea, bad idea, or waste of time?
Excellent work Les. Thanks for sharing the method. The proper way to do bridge saddle and nut slots calls for a depth of only about half of the string's diameter. If it is much deeper, sustain might suffer. The string is supposed to sit on the slot rather than in it. You can cut your saddle slots deeper but try to preserve the V-shape of the original slot.
-
jwr2
-
rickengeezer
- Junior Member
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:00 am
Well, the neck is about flat now, any more will give it a little bit of a backbow...it doesn't seem like the truss rods would help action up above fret 12, would it? The action is fine down by the headstock, but it gets linearly worse up the neck...the bridge is just higher than the nut, even with it lowered all the way. On a bolt-on this is something I'd adjust with a neck tilt adjustment if I ran out of range on the bridge.
Jeff, when you replace saddles, do you use stock Rickenbacker saddles? A lower profile saddle would probably help some and avoid the depth issues that Ted talked about, but I'm not aware of any other saddles that would fit a Ric bridge.
Jeff, when you replace saddles, do you use stock Rickenbacker saddles? A lower profile saddle would probably help some and avoid the depth issues that Ted talked about, but I'm not aware of any other saddles that would fit a Ric bridge.
On most Ricks, the neck will angle back very slightly as it leaves the body. (like what happens when you use the micro adjust on a Fender / G&L) You can see this by sighting the fingerboard along the upper horn when the bass is in playing position. This angle varies from instrument to instrument with some being very nearly flat. The flatter ones will tend to have higher action up the neck. My '63 actually has a slight forward angle which means the action is a bit high after the 12th fret even when the bridge is bottomed out in the tailpiece. In my experience, Ricks with uniformly low action have more pronounced neck rearward angles. My BlackStar has very low action (just less than 2/32" at the 20th fret). When it is laid on it's back on a table top, the tip of the headstock just touches the table top. My higher-action basses have varying gaps at the headstock tip. Of course the gap is unscientific and I mention it only as an obervation. The size of of the headstock does figure into the equation a bit. 
There are two things I can think of that you can do if the neck angle is flat. One is easy and the other is more major. You can take the bridge saddles down a bit to further lower the strings at the bridge. If you are really attached to the bass, the other thing would be to have the fingerboard releveled to create more of a backward angle. It might be easier to sell it and find another with a more agreeable angle though.
There are two things I can think of that you can do if the neck angle is flat. One is easy and the other is more major. You can take the bridge saddles down a bit to further lower the strings at the bridge. If you are really attached to the bass, the other thing would be to have the fingerboard releveled to create more of a backward angle. It might be easier to sell it and find another with a more agreeable angle though.