The Horseshoes are explained - Finally-Part 2

[simer4001]

WOW! After all of that, this has turned into a very informative thread. I have never been big on the electronics but reading these posts gives me a much better understanding. The real question is will I remember any of it tomorrow?

[marc61]

Well, I still say I have the best horsey. Magnetic shoes surrounding a reissue pickup. Best of all worlds.

[rickfan60]

Mark, the newer RIC tailpieces are die cast zinc, which has a very similar density to aluminum. However, the aluminum one is solid and usually seems to sit flatter on the bass. There seems to be two different materials for the bridges as well, although not along the same time lines. Most of mine have been zinc also, but I've had a 70's one or two that felt quite heavy. It was either a thicker casting or as you say, steel.

Zinc is actually more than twice as dense as aluminum but as you say, the volume of aluminum in the old tailpieces is greater than the volume of zinc used in the newer ones.

[walker]

Dane & Ted -

What's the report on how the new Zinc tailpieces have addressed the "lift" issue?

[rickfan60]

Mark,

That is a good question. I don't think the new ones lift much if at all. The sides are pretty thick now and the ribs are beefed up a bit too. Some will argue with me on that but it depends on how "lift" is defined. Some people feel they have lift if there is ANY gap under the rear of the tailpiece. I don't believe that is so. The body of the bass being wood was sanded and finished by hand. Sometimes as a result, the wood may not be dead flat giving appearance of lift. This gets some people worked up into a sweat for nothing. ALL of my Ricks - except my '63 have some visible gap.

[thinneckrick]

Until the pot metal (err..Zinc)is removed from the the mix . the problem will remain . Im using aluminum hipshots and i beleive that is the key . They are extremely light and still the have density not to move under pressure . I think that if rick used aluminum exclusivly the problem would be over.

[jaymi]

Until the pot metal (err..Zinc)is removed from the th mix . the problem will remain . Im using aluminum hipshots and i beleive that is the key . They are extremely light and still the density not to move under pressure . I think that if rick used aluminum exclusivly the problem would be over.

the other thing going along with that, is I have read on here that the screws sometimes get overtightened and that causes a bending point in the tailpiece. if that is true, could it be that the hole where the inset part of the tailpiece rests is too deep? I think the combined effect of the weaker metal and the over stress point of the screws mounting it in that cavity will cause 99% of the tail lift....
thoughts???

J

[rickfan60]

No, I disagree. Zinc is not the problem. I believe lift, when it actually happens, to be the function of a few factors including the fit of the tailpiece into the body, screw tension, how high the bridge sits, and the type of strings used. If, when, and how much is a **** shoot.


Jaymi,

Yessir! Over-tight screws under the bridge will definitely setup a lift condition if the metal is not directly touching the wood, the zinc will tend to deflect upward just daring the string tension to pull it forward. I started making maple shims to fill that space so that would not happen. In the process learned something about why some older Ricks don't have much low end. It seems that if the shim fills the gap properly, the bass becomes more resonant - a very cool and most welcome side effect.

[jaymi]

No, I disagree. Zinc is not the problem. I believe lift, when it actually happens, to be the function of a few factors including the fit of the tailpiece into the body, screw tension, how high the bridge sits, and the type of strings used.


Jaymi,

Yessir! Over-tight screws under the bridge will definitely setup a lift condition if the metal is not directly touching the wood under there. I started making maple shims to fill that space so that would not happen. In the process learned something about why some older Ricks don't have much low end.

Ted...got it, so really, if the hole is too deep, THIS is the reason mainly for the tail lift. I understand the logistics behind it. Maple shims sound like an interesting fix. If this is a known issue, don't you think that this should be rectified in the build process?

[johnallg]

Jaymi, I believe that to be true, from what I have observed with my basses and others postings. The deep rout where the 3 screws go in under the bridge assy. is deeper than necessary and if those three screws are put in tightly, will raise up either or both ends of the tailpiece. Putting flat washers into that gap to fill in the spacing difference is a cheap and easy fix. Ted got elaborate on one of his basses and made a correct thickness maple plug to fill in the over-rout. Being under CNC control, I am curious as to why this is. Could be a valid reason, but I can't think of it.

Ha, slow typing again....

[rickfan60]

As John says, I think the current RIC build method would make shims unnecessary. The CNC cut bodies are far more precise than the earlier ones.

[rickfan60]

Ted...got it, so really, if the hole is too deep, THIS is the reason mainly for the tail lift. I understand the logistics behind it. Maple shims sound like an interesting fix. If this is a known issue, don't you think that this should be rectified in the build process?

I think the problem has been solved by the factory. I like maple because the shims can be sanded to the required thickness. Washers work as well.

[leftybass]

Great reading, guys...... Now I'm wondering about torque specs for tailpiece screws and tailpiece rout depths for older basses!

I wonder if anyone has made a 'depth gauge' of some sort to check if a rout is spot-on or not.....

[rickfan60]

That is an interesting idea John. I was just eyeballing it. Maybe it could be done more precisely. I could measure the offset of the casting and compare it with the depth of the route. The difference would be the shim thickness. An engineers rule would work nicely for that.

[pflash4001]

Hey guys...I am kinda wondering about my '68. I have seen that there's another floating around in this thread...I had Dale work on mine last year. He did a neck repair for me and the neck now feels great. I do have 2 problems though. First off is that the pickups are VERY low output compared to my others. My 1979 4001 is WAY louder and stonger than the '68. I heard some people around here in the past talk about using rare earth magnets to re-gauss the magnets in the pick ups. I tried to order them from Stew-Mac and they dissuaded me from trying it. They said it wasn't as easy as I may have been led to believe. Honestly, I wasn't really sure what I was going to do other that try to get a hold of someone who may have info on doing that (Sergio???) And yes, it is both the neck and bridge p/u's that are low output. The other thing is that the neck is set prettty flat...Dale of course set up the neck after the repair, but I can't seem to get a decent set up on the H/S on the bass side. If I set the p/u height so that the open E string rings freely, the string will strike the bobbin on the p/u anywhere past like the 10th or 11th fret. If I set it so I get more space on the upper register, the open string to about the 3rd or 4th fret rattle on the horseshoe...is there anyway to adjust the gap on the pickup or do I need to adjust the neck again? what do I need to do? Is there always going to be a rattle on that E string? I really want to gig this bass a bit more often, but I want more output from it and I need that rattling string issue resolved.