Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Options 7 and 8 were the reasons for me to include a discussion on outsourcing as a way towards producing a new bridge.
Rickenbacker has been a way of life for me as a bass player and as a way of staying true to the brand and carrying on into the future as well as
sourcing new ways of adressing the demand for spares is why I thought that a respected specialist hardware manufacturer could start producing products and making them available sooner rather than later without compromising the reputation of Rickenbacker.

thinneckrick wrote: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 .

For me, it doesn't get in the way at all. I only play finger style and my right hand floats from the neck to the tailpiece. I know that pick players have different opinions, but I'm just sayin'...the mute doesn't get in my way.

I can't really say that I've ever had a problem with the original RIC bridge. I really like the way it looks, better than just about anything else out there, but that may be because I'm just accustomed to it after 30 years. Adjusting intonation is a pain, but I hardly ever have to mess with it in reality.

The mute? well, I think the "teeth" look cool, again, probably my familiarity. I actually tried it ONCE, 30 years ago, just to see what it was like. Not my kind of sound, so I NEVER used it again. It doesn't really get in my way though.

I do think that a bridge/tailpiece that had the classic good looks but added the newer adjustability features found on more modern designs would be a proper RIC replacement.

Anyway, I voted 2,3,6, & 8.

And I would really like to see a 5 string version...

I'm not in favor of a radical redesign. A modification to the design that allowed easier intonation, adjustable saddles and a way to eliminate heel lift would be trés bien for me.

I made my votes, but all I'd really like is those 7-screw tp's back from the 80's.

Sounds like a joke... "Hey the 80's called, they want their 7-screw tailpieces back!"

"Hey Dave, the 70's called, they want their doublenecks back!"

"Hey Jeff Scott, Star Trek called, they want their j-peg's back!"

"Hey Graham, Guinness called, they want their 600,000,000 gallons of beer back!"

"Hey Joey and Tony, New York called, they said FUHGEDDABOUTIT!!!!!"

I really amuse myself sometimes.

jdogric12aolcom wrote:I made my votes, but all I'd really like is those 7-screw tp's back from the 80's.

Sounds like a joke... "Hey the 80's called, they want their 7-screw tailpieces back!"

"Hey Dave, the 70's called, they want their doublenecks back!"

"Hey Jeff Scott, Star Trek called, they want their j-peg's back!"

"Hey Graham, Guinness called, they want their 600,000,000 gallons of beer back!"

"Hey Joey and Tony, New York called, they said FUHGEDDABOUTIT!!!!!"

I really amuse myself sometimes.

Nothing to do at work today, Jdog?

rickfan60 wrote:

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.

Who makes the tuners for our beloved basses? I think that a healthy discussion of other possibilities is fine...(if it needs to be in another thread, then we can start one..) apparently, the bridge discussion stirs the pot quite a bit....

by the way, I went with #8

jdogric12aolcom wrote:I made my votes, but all I'd really like is those 7-screw tp's back from the 80's.

Sounds like a joke... "Hey the 80's called, they want their 7-screw tailpieces back!"

"Hey Dave, the 70's called, they want their doublenecks back!"

"Hey Jeff Scott, Star Trek called, they want their j-peg's back!"

"Hey Graham, Guinness called, they want their 600,000,000 gallons of beer back!"

"Hey Joey and Tony, New York called, they said FUHGEDDABOUTIT!!!!!"

I really amuse myself sometimes.

I am ROTFLMAO

jdogric12aolcom wrote:
"Hey Graham, Guinness called, they want their 600,000,000 gallons of beer back!"

Eh...FUHGEDDABOUTIT!!!!!"

2, 3, 8 & 9.

My favourite bridge design is the Schaller 3-D - I like lots of scope for adjustment! The Hipshot already ticks all the functionality boxes for a redesign, but it would seem a really simple brief to redesign the existing Rick unit to retain 99% of its aesthetic. Apart from increased structural rigidity, I'd leave the tailpiece alone & re-engineer the actual bridge assembly.

Individual string height, ease of intonation adjustment - plus the wobbly saddle problem - could be addressed using a system similar to the Overwater unit posted earlier by Jeffrey Scott. Each saddle would have a height-adjustable insert, intonation would be adjusted by slackening a locking screw & moving the saddle by hand. Upgrading from the existing bridge would be a simple matter of dropping the new one into your existing tailpiece.

Aside from the redesign I had a though about the tail-lift problem that I don't recall ever seeing mentioned before. Has anyone ever dealt with this by modifying their bass for through-body stringing? The tailpiece apertures are ideally shaped for this, and the mod would be very inconspicuous - apart from requiring holes to be drilled through the bass. It would be interesting to see what effect on tone & sustain there might be, too.

Jon.

I voted for simpler intonation, just cut slots in the tailpiece so I can get a small screwdriver in and turn the screws without having to take the bridge out to adjust saddle distance. Maybe they could add string slots on the saddles to keep strings centered?

I truly love the looks of the Rick bridge but just make it a little easier to adjust intonation.

jps wrote: Nothing to do at work today, Jdog?

Actually I am swamped with a huge 4-year depreciation projection for the CFO due ASAP. But I have Thursday and Friday off, there is no way this is getting done before Tuesday anyway, and this is how I keep myself sane. Pay J Dog more money and he'll stay off the forum!!!

rickfan60 wrote: 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.

That was me. I've had my 4003 for almost seven years and have gigged it a TON. The bridge has never given me any trouble. No lifting, saddles are fine, etc. No need to palm mute as I like to use the mechanical mute on this bass.

I understand that many have had issues with it, but in my experience the bridge/tailpiece has been fine, no complaints.

I wonder whose idea this survey was? There is nobody credited.

Anybody?