Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

If RIC changed the bridge design tomorrow there would be 100 threads screaming about the change & "Oh my god....how could they do that!" type stuff. This is obviously a RIC friendly site, bordering on sycophantic at times....and while I don't agree with all of RIC's business decisions I sometimes feel that John Hall & Co are in a damned if they do, damned if they don't type situation. IMHO, RIC addressed a lot of the perceived shortcomings of the 4001/3 by creating the 4004 which I think many people aren't crazy about because it doesn't have the "classic" look. (I'd LOVE to have one btw....)
I think RIC is an at times quirky, yet fiercely independent corporation & they get flamed a lot for things they shouldn't (like a COY not being everybody's particular cup of tea). I would think that RIC's biggest concern right now is simply the massive backlog of orders they face right now. I'm sure a bridge re-design is on the horizon, & in inimitable Hall style they'll just slide it in when we least expect it.
That being said, I have a chrome plated brass Hipshot on my 4003 & it is a vast improvement. My G-string (hee hee hee) was pretty weak before & this helped greatly. My luthier is much happier too. One of the reasons I ended up pulling the trigger on one of these was the threat of litigation -- I didn't want to miss the boat! And when/if I do sell that 4003, I'm keeping that bridge & slapping it on my 3001!

Just my .02 cents though....& it's worth what it cost ya....

loendmaestro wrote:IMHO, RIC addressed a lot of the perceived shortcomings of the 4001/3 by creating the 4004 which I think many people aren't crazy about because it doesn't have the "classic" look. (I'd LOVE to have one btw....)

Me too - I think the 4004s are gorgous instruments. A really good development of the 'marque'.

loendmaestro wrote:...& in inimitable Hall style they'll just slide it in when we least expect it.

Ooh, Matron!

espidog wrote:
My personal fantasy no-holds-barred Rick bass would have to leave the factory with:
1. modern 4003 construction (i.e. with the new slimmer-profile neck)
2. poured-in inlays
3. checker binding
4. toaster (in the old half-inch position, of course)
5. horseshoe (not essential, but they do look cool)
6. stereo wiring
7. a pickup selector switch that goes east-west (i.e. it actually points at the pickup in question)
8. a mute that you can flip in and out quickly
AND...
9. a bridge that works!

Soooooo...you want a 90's 4003 (for the most part)! Can't you change the switch direction by taking off the pickguard, loosening the switch, and twisting it around?

dpowell wrote:Soooooo...you want a 90's 4003 (for the most part)! Can't you change the switch direction by taking off the pickguard, loosening the switch, and twisting it around?

Interesting... Were 90s models that close to my wish-list, then? Surely there was no checker binding after 1973 - and for my perfect bass, that would be a deal-breaker.

Re. the switch: no, alas, owing to its design:



...it can't simply be turned around. You'd have to route out some extra space under the pickguard, and I'm not too keen on losing any wood.

I could replace the RIC component with one of these:



...but it would have to be of similar quality to the original, and most aren't.

loendmaestro wrote:If RIC changed the bridge design tomorrow there would be 100 threads screaming about the change & "Oh my god....how could they do that!" type stuff.

True, and in fact I don't want them to do that - I don't have any particular issue with the stock Rick bridge from a functional point of view, I don't find the difficulties some users seem to. OK, maybe I hit my hand on the mute screws a bit and I could do without that, but otherwise it works fine for me, and I like the look of it.

My issue is purely with the quality of it - tail lift is a problem that has been known about for at least thirty years and is because the part is not strong enough to fully resist the string tension without 'creeping' over time as some metals and alloys are prone to. The solution is simply to make it better, either by increasing the thickness of the casting, machining it from a solid piece, or using a better grade of alloy, or some combination of these. It's not complicated, and it would admittedly increase the cost of it, but it amazes me that any company should continue to make a part the same way for so long after a serious issue with it is known about. It's true that at some point in the 80s they tried to fix it by adding two more screws, but this ruined the appearance because it looked like (and was) a band-aid solution - so that was dropped after a short while and the original problem was allowed to occur again...

I think it's pretty lame that RIC has to change the name and make fun of a product that's clearly superior to the one they make.

nattiep wrote:I think it's pretty lame that RIC has to change the name and make fun of a product that's clearly superior to the one they make.

My thoughts exactly. Downright cheek.

#1 on the 4004 as the moderne alternative....i first saw them here on this very site and decided to get one. it is both very functional with the smaller fully adjustable bridge and lightweight tuning keys,and a delight to play,albeit with a somewhat different tone and feel. so i suppose if you wanted a modernised ricbass,this would be the one to get....just forego all that classic baggage....(i still love my 74 4000,though!)

nattiep wrote:I think it's pretty lame that RIC has to change the name and make fun of a product that's clearly superior to the one they make.

But why should RIC tolerate discussions of competitor's products on their own corporate web site? Its just not good business.

86kubicki wrote:But why should RIC tolerate discussions of competitor's products on their own corporate web site? Its just not good business.

It's called being grown up. Besides, the discussion wasn't happening on their corporate website: it was on the forum - a place which, if it is to be worthy of the name at all, should be exactly that: a forum for open discussion, where the members feel free to air honest opinions and, where necessary, offer justifiable criticism. The fact that the RIC forum isn't any of these things tells us all we need to know. But it goes further than that: even if RIC want their forum to be a platform for nothing but fawning praise, there's no justification for slinging schoolyard insults at other manufacturers.

espidog wrote:

86kubicki wrote:But why should RIC tolerate discussions of competitor's products on their own corporate web site? Its just not good business.

It's called being grown up. Besides, the discussion wasn't happening on their corporate website: it was on the forum - a place which, if it is to be worthy of the name at all, should be exactly that: a forum for open discussion, where the members feel free to air honest opinions and, where necessary, offer justifiable criticism. The fact that the RIC forum isn't any of these things tells us all we need to know. But it goes further than that: even if RIC want their forum to be a platform for nothing but fawning praise, there's no justification for slinging schoolyard insults at other manufacturers.

Aside from Hipshot becoming Dipstick, where else has RIC slung "schoolyard insults at other manufacturers" on their forum?
Once again, as the legality of these bridges still seems to be in question, I can't blame RIC for not wanting them discussed on their forum. And keep in mind that it is THEIR forum and will be moderated as they see fit, (just as Peter moderates this forum).

RIC is the only (or one of the few) manufacturer(s) to actively fight anyone from using their designs in aftermarket products, too. It seems to me as if it could be argued the many Fender type replacement bridges are just as bad, but Fender didn't take the time to prevent them from being mass produced. With the legality question, I can see why RIC doesn't want the bridge discussed on the corporate forum. Their beef with Pyramid strings, from what I've gathered, is false advertising claiming they are nearly identical to the strings RIC produced in the 60s. John Hall stated, at least once that I've read, that Pyramids are much higher tension strings than the originals.

Does anybody know how this sort of thing works in the auto industry? There are many replacement parts available that aren't made by the manufacturer. Are these done by license or anything?

This has been discussed in great length before, but basically RIC is required by law to vigorously go after those that infringe on their trademarks (including Hipshot I assume). Failure to do so would result in RIC losing control of their trademarks which would open the floodgates for copies.

As far as I know, making after market parts that are drop in replacements for another manufacturers product is not illegal. Now, this is based on the idea that it is not an identical replica of the original, but a separate design that does not infringe upon any patented design features. As far as I can tell the only thing the Hipshot has in common with the Ric bridge is that they have the same hole mounting pattern.



The two newer model bridges almost look to be a plastic injected product. My guess is that it is an investment casting but the casting marks don't look like it. The newer style looks to be an improvement as far as wall thickness and more contact surface than the 70s counterpart.

I don't think this should to be a bashing of Rickenbacker's stance on their own forums, but more of peoples opinions of the two products.

Picture is courtesy of Jeffrey Scott (jps)

I just took the mute screws off of mine where my hand sits and it digs into my hand...and then promptly lost them. OOPS.
A lever would be a great idea for the mute, but where would it go?
Maybe tuck into the back end of the tailpiece? But then the bridge would lose even more mass. And run the danger of potential finish scratches from moving it back and forth.
I haven't played a Hipshot, BUT...the functionality seems to be there, but some of the aesthetics are lost. There has to be a middle ground, and maybe that's what RIC is working on.