Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

rickenbrother wrote:I see some of you guys are endorsing a change to a different manufacturers bridge. Why don't you see what the new bridge/tailpiece design will eventually be, before you do that.

This thread does not exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

The padlock is at the ready, just in case this thread really goes off the road.

The thing about the new bridge is that it was promised as being up and coming what.... 2 years ago? at least.

Closing a thread because it discusses another company's product is, IMO, childish. We all understand the rules, we're all fans of Rickenbackers, I don't see how talking about a badass bridge of hipshot bridges takes away from that.

You can't fix a hole in the wall by turning around and not looking at it...

cassius987 wrote:

paologregorio wrote:What, no bass whammy bar bridge option?!

Seriously? If they feel up to it, sure, but I've never been a fan of floating tails because of the tuning issues they often come with. Plus I never use the whammy.

I was actually kidding about the whammy bar bridge option. I've only seen a couple of those, and one was back in the 80s on a really low budget brand that I can't remember the name of. I just said that because I'm a whammy bar nut with whammy bars on all my guitars. I probably wouldn't know what to do with a whammy bar on a bass. I started out playing music as a bass player; when I played bass, my instrument of choice was a JG Rick 4001, and the factory bridge suited me just fine. I was so blissfully happy just playing the bass as it was that I didn't even know that the bridge included a mute. . Granted, I played bass in a band for only two years or so, but I had no issues at all with the stock.factory Rick bridge, plus it looks super cool! (jeez, anyone ever notice how I always have to comment on the way something looks on a guitar? )

tennis_nick wrote:

rickenbrother wrote: Closing a thread because it discusses another company's product is, IMO, childish. We all understand the rules, we're all fans of Rickenbackers, I don't see how talking about a badass bridge of hipshot bridges takes away from that.

You can't fix a hole in the wall by turning around and not looking at it...

Nick, I wouldn't lock it for the discussion of Badass bridge and Hipshot bridges. Obviously, I didn't lock it already, Did I?
Discussing what you'd like to see in a new design and endorsing another manufactures products are two different subjects.
Re-read my post, you might understand my motive for possibly locking the thread.

I would really like this poll to run for a week so we can get enough votes to get a clear idea of what the community is thinking about...

jps wrote:

rickfan60 wrote:It's 2,3,4, and 7 for me.

I am surprised to see that someone picked the last option. In nearly 32 years of experience with Rickenbacker basses I have never heard anyone say that.

Did you actually vote, as #7 is still (at this post time) at 0?

I too, was very surprised to see a vote for #10!

Ooops. No, I miscounted - not #7 I meant #8.

What new bridge and tailpiece design ???? I love my three ricks . Just because i use another companys bridge design doesnt mean The whole bass stinks. The terrible thing about my hipshot is it cured deadspots and created more sustain . How awful. When Rick finally comes up with a better design i will be first in line to try it . But till then , The hipshot is the whip .

thinneckrick wrote:What new bridge and tailpiece design ????

They've had one in the works for a while.

On a related note, I can understand why a manufacturer of a quality instrument my take years to introduce a new bridge design; read any history book on guitars or basses and one will find a number of examples in the past where a manufacturere introduced design changes to a bridge, pickups, et cetera that were long thought out as improvements in design, only to have the unintended consequence of creating a new problem after eliminating an old one, compounding the problem, or finidng that players came to prefer the original diesign in the first place. The Fender Strat tremolo comes to mind-things have come almost full circle on that design, but the multitude of changes to this or that over the years can make it a headache should one need parts for one's Strat trem unit.

rickenbrother wrote:I see some of you guys are endorsing a change to a different manufacturers bridge. Why don't you see what the new bridge/tailpiece design will eventually be, before you do that.

This thread does not exactly give me a warm and fuzzy feeling.

The padlock is at the ready, just in case this thread really goes off the road.

In the absence of a RIC replacement part, the mention of other manufacturers is inevitable.

They've had one in the works for a while.Yeah, thats the same rumor ive heard for two plus years now. Like i said , What new bridge

paologregorio wrote:

cassius987 wrote:

paologregorio wrote:What, no bass whammy bar bridge option?!

Seriously? If they feel up to it, sure, but I've never been a fan of floating tails because of the tuning issues they often come with. Plus I never use the whammy.

I was actually kidding about the whammy bar bridge option. I've only seen a couple of those, and one was back in the 80s on a really low budget brand that I can't remember the name of. I just said that because I'm a whammy bar nut with whammy bars on all my guitars. I probably wouldn't know what to do with a whammy bar on a bass. I started out playing music as a bass player; when I played bass, my instrument of choice was a JG Rick 4001, and the factory bridge suited me just fine. I was so blissfully happy just playing the bass as it was that I didn't even know that the bridge included a mute. . Granted, I played bass in a band for only two years or so, but I had no issues at all with the stock.factory Rick bridge, plus it looks super cool! (jeez, anyone ever notice how I always have to comment on the way something looks on a guitar? )

I can't recall where, but I HAVE seem a 4003 with a bass whammy installed... wow I wish I would've saved THAT picture!

Love those halen like bass dive bombs

2, 3 and 9 for me. 3 isn't something I would consider necessary, but if we're talking about bridge redesign, why not go for it all? If Rickenbacker was to decide to outsource bridge manufacturing of the in-house design, I don't think that would be a bad thing. They already use other hardware on the 4004s and that seems to work well. The only disadvantage I can really see to going with something like the Schaller is that you lose the bridge mute, and, even though people may not use it much, it is nice to have it available.

I think it would be intersting to see if the new design is radically different from the current design. I would imagine, based on the current "part standards," that anything made would be installable on the current models without any serious modification. Why else would they still keep the treble pickup in the horseshoe shape when the horseshoes haven't been standard issue for years? Just my thoughts, anyway.

The mute system is an old design And lets be completely honest here. Kinda gets in the way .Having that part gone like the hipshot design adds playability and far easier access to behind the bridge pickup playing styles .Besides how many of you guys really use the mute system on a regular basis ? I was always kinda into the Bob Babbit mute approach . Chunk of foam in my pocket till needed .

nukebass wrote: I think it would be intersting to see if the new design is radically different from the current design. I would imagine, based on the current "part standards," that anything made would be installable on the current models without any serious modification. Why else would they still keep the treble pickup in the horseshoe shape when the horseshoes haven't been standard issue for years? Just my thoughts, anyway.

IIRC, when JH used to post about the new bridge redesign, he did say that it would be installable on older Ricks without any mods.