Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:34 am**

My neck pickup route is the same way 10 holes. Looks goofy. '77 4001.

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 7:46 am**

All 5 of my basses from '64 to '79 are the same way. It's a pretty commonly known part of the construction; I just never thought to ponder the "Why?"

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 8:23 am**

walker wrote:All 5 of my basses from '64 to '79 are the same way. It's a pretty commonly known part of the construction; I just never thought to ponder the "Why?"

My guess, but I could be absolutely wrong, is that it is easier to "free hand" a succession of Forstner bit holes than a router. Main assumption here being that they did not have a router jig for the channel for some reason.

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:26 am**

walker wrote:Here's another brief sidebar until I finish up the RM:

So Chris Seibel dropped by yesterday to have me look at his bass regarding some buzz and string alignment issues, and while we were talking bass, he posed a very interesting question - one I've never heard anyone else mention before, or thought of myself in all my years of having Ricks-On-The-Brain. He was taking a look at the bare face of the RM and asked "Was this toaster pickup wire groove cut by a succession of drill holes?" I said yes, believing that to be true, then he asked: "Then how was this harness cavity cut?" "That was done with a router." I said. And now the $64,000 question posed by Chris: "Then why didn't they just cut the pickup wire groove with a router too?"

Good dang question. All the pickup, harness, and tailpiece cavities from about '64 on up are routed, yet RIC handled that wire path by hitting it with a drill about 10 times... which seems way more precarious to do at a suitable and accurate arc than it would be with a router. Seems like it would have been more time-consuming, too. I know that RIC has been using the CNC machines for all the cavity cutting on their guitars for the past few years, but the neck pickup wire trough cut out with a series of drill holes continued to be the RIC standard long after they started using a router to cut out the body cavities.

So there it is. Any theories? Or answers?

Well Thank you Mark. thanks for inviting me into your home and taking a look at my bass. it was a pleasure meeting you and chatting

That bass is going to be great once its all back together it certainly felt good in its present state of progress. To the casual observer, they would not be able to tell one side is not original. I still cant believe how thin the necks are in comparison to mine.

I am still surprised at what truss rods look like too. now I understand how they function a little bit better.

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:37 am**

so, thinking about that other thing we discussed with the truss rods.apparently it was not an original thought

http://s127.photobucket.com/albums/p122 ... p/at34.jpg

http://cdn1.bigcommerce.com/server700/1 ... 0.1280.jpg

oh well....

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 12:04 pm**

The holes are actually made with a Forstner bit, not a drill bit.

Posted: **Sun Jul 21, 2013 2:03 pm**

It was a pleasure, Chris. Interesting story on how you decided to play a Rick to begin with - you should post that on the "Why I play a Rick" thread. (I think there's one around here somewhere.) I know those '64 rods I showed you are pretty old technology - I wonder how the current 4003/4004 rods are made. Looks like a blue shrink-wrap on that 2nd photo.

Free-handing a router is actually pretty easy, especially if you're creating a slight arc and not trying to make a perfectly straight line, but the "no jig" theory still makes sense.

Posted: **Mon Jul 22, 2013 10:15 pm**

Seems like it would have paid off many times over the years in time savings if they had made a jig to do the wiring arc.

Mark, the current rods are one round metal rod with threads at both ends. An acorn nut and washer on one end (body end) and the block and truss nut at the neck.

http://boutique.rickenbacker.com/TRUSS- ... p_547.html

The rods Chris showed are on Allparts:

http://www.allparts.com/truss-rods-and-nuts

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 1:03 am**

interesting

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:21 am**

johnallg wrote:Seems like it would have paid off many times over the years in time savings if they had made a jig to do the wiring arc.

Mark, the current rods are one round metal rod with threads at both ends. An acorn nut and washer on one end (body end) and the block and truss nut at the neck.

http://boutique.rickenbacker.com/TRUSS- ... p_547.html

The rods Chris showed are on Allparts:

http://www.allparts.com/truss-rods-and-nuts

The rods from Chris post are dual action. Meaning they can force the neck into a front bow or a back bow.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 5:50 pm**

A dual-action design would definitely work well with the '60s basses that sometimes develop a back-bow. That was the initial problem with the RM, and in dry weather my '68 has a tendency to bow back a little, too. It's rods are at full relief.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:01 pm**

Colonel Sanders wrote:
johnallg wrote:Seems like it would have paid off many times over the years in time savings if they had made a jig to do the wiring arc.

Mark, the current rods are one round metal rod with threads at both ends. An acorn nut and washer on one end (body end) and the block and truss nut at the neck.

http://boutique.rickenbacker.com/TRUSS- ... p_547.html

The rods Chris showed are on Allparts:

http://www.allparts.com/truss-rods-and-nuts
The rods from Chris post are dual action. Meaning they can force the neck into a front bow or a back bow.

Yup.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:14 pm**

Colonel Sanders wrote:The rods from Chris post are dual action. Meaning they can force the neck into a front bow or a back bow.

Those type of truss rods require a deeper channel, I don't think those would be a drop in for a modern (or older) Rick neck. However, those dual action rods are great; I have them in my two Martin Keith basses, my Rick Turner bass and there was one in my former G&L bass.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 8:57 pm**

jps wrote:
Colonel Sanders wrote:The rods from Chris post are dual action. Meaning they can force the neck into a front bow or a back bow.
Those type of truss rods require a deeper channel, I don't think those would be a drop in for a modern (or older) Rick neck. However, those dual action rods are great; I have them in my two Martin Keith basses, my Rick Turner bass and there was one in my former G&L bass.

My Epi Thunderbird Pro IV is neck thru with a dual action rod. They do work pretty great.

Posted: **Tue Jul 23, 2013 9:12 pm**

jps wrote:..there was one in my former G&L bass.

...there still is one in the G&L, actually.

Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

(We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progress)

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres

Re: (We now join this RM 1999 restoration already in progres