Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

rickaddict wrote:

cjj wrote: Edit: I see they say it's been completely redesigned, that's probably the new model to get around the trademark issues they had with the original version.

Really? Redesigned? Pics? Link?

It's in the like above, which is to Hipshot's site. I was just quoting their ad. I don't know if it has been redesigned or not.

I think the ad has been the same for some years as well...

In any case, that is NOT RIC's new bridge...

Yup, btw I just voted 2,3,5. I hope they will keep the overall design of the tailpiece like it is as much as possible.

Oh man, thinneckrick is gonna kill me, sorry Jeff.

I'm one of the "Thundering Heard", "The Silent Majority", & "Rebels Without A Clue" massing along the boarder to vote for "don't touch a thing". Check it out, there are already.............3(?).............OK, we are still massing. (Power to the people John!)

Please pardon my speech as I believe I have rattled on about my point on prior occasions. A couple of points with an attempt to be brief.

1) Been dragging a 4001/4003 around since the late 60's. Fall into the Jamerson school of instrument maintenance, you know, change a string when it breaks. Can barely spell intonation never mind do it. Although road hard and put away wet, 10 years as a full time musician (term used loosely), never had ANY problems with my 4001 & 4003's.

2) The hand mute issue did bite me. Tried repeatedly to break away from my Rick rut, Fenders, Smiths, Alembics, no luck. There is a mystical presence when wrapped in a 4001/4003. The 4004 solved the "muting" issue. (Brian, I love the flats on the Ci)

3) Changes: My fear here has been demonstrated by history via examples like "vintage instruments"such as 59-62 P Bass & 59 Les Paul & 64 4001, 1967 427 Corvette, the British Spitfire, 1968 Triumph Bonneville, and OMG the 1934 Bridget Bardot. Perfect, no (Bridget maybe), but they got it right from the start. I worry any changes to the infrastructure of the 4003 will lead to this being the "good old days" ten years from now as it is very likely to change the sound. There is a definite "difference about a 4003 Rick. As they become more like all other basses, that may indeed happen. Would a 67 Vette run better with a modern 427 from the new Z06? Yep, but eeuuww. Would Bridget look better with plastic surgery? Aw, forget that, no way! You get the idea, I think the differences are in the details, including the imperfections. I would rather see a new 4003 model offering changes with the "Classic" model left alone.

OK, that's me being brief, Happy New Year to all the Rick rascals.

j_gary wrote:There is a mystical presence when wrapped in a 4001/4003.

Amen, man. 26 years of searching and I've just decided to give up.

rickaddict wrote:

j_gary wrote:There is a mystical presence when wrapped in a 4001/4003.

Amen, man. 26 years of searching and I've just decided to give up.

I have been playing them for 22 years myself and each time I try to go somewhere else, I end up back in Ric central....I am probably going to get back to a roomful before too long....who knows???

s4001 wrote: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.

Exactly, Scott. Why would RIC want to put a bridge on the 4001/3 basses that looks like any other manufacturer's bridge? The RIC tailpiece is distinctive and looks great along with the rest of the bass, so I vote to leave it as is. It needs to be made more sturdy to address the taillift, and the bridge assy needs to be rethought to make the saddles lay fully to the bridge and not rock and click, be a LOT more easily adjusted for intonation, and the rocking of the bridge assy itself needs to be addressed so it couples to the tailpiece more fully and not just rest/rock on 2 setscrews. I really like the overall look of the tailpiece. It just looks like it belongs on the 4001/3 basses.

johnallg wrote:[Why would RIC want to put a bridge on the 4001/3 basses that looks like any other manufacturer's bridge? The RIC tailpiece is distinctive and looks great along with the rest of the bass, so I vote to leave it as is. It needs to be made more sturdy to address the taillift, and the bridge assy needs to be rethought to make the saddles lay fully to the bridge and not rock and click, be a LOT more easily adjusted for intonation, and the rocking of the bridge assy itself needs to be addressed so it couples to the tailpiece more fully and not just rest/rock on 2 setscrews. I really like the overall look of the tailpiece. It just looks like it belongs on the 4001/3 basses.

Well stated, John. I especially agree with your points regarding the looks, the taillift and ease of intonation.
Also, while I actually like the idea of only 2 screws for all 4 strings height adjustment, the problem seems to be, as you said - how to make a more solid bridge-to-tailpiece contact. I don't have the answer, but oddly enough, for me, that's not a big deal either. If my bridges "rock" a little, it doesn't seem to make itself obvious in any negative way.
So for me, the ideal redesigned bridge would be:
(1) easier to intonate
(2) built like the older ones, or stiff enough to not lift.

Then of course, I don't even know if it's possible or feasible to do that...

j_gary wrote: The 4004 solved the "muting" issue. (Brian, I love the flats on the Ci)

I'm glad the combo works for you.....I take it that the Ci is a possible keeper then?

I voted for the last option. I have had my Ric since 2001 and there doesnt seem to be a problem with my bridge.

I love that big chunk of crome on my Geddyglo......Looks mean!!!......My vote would be for a stronger alloy.....and yes i know Geds has a BADASS
fenbass

I had a few issues with mine, my points would be make it EASY to use. I love the looks of it. It is hard compared to other basses to really tweak it and make adjustments if need be. For me, anyway.
AND if they make a 5-string version, to put on a new 5-string bass, I will be in heaven. A 5-string with full-width MOP and a tone switch? I am SO there.

I'm not sure if some of you guys are aware of this...a guitar tech at a shockingly dishonest and morally bankrupt Chicago Rickenbacker dealership once showed it to me...All you really have to do with the 4001/4003 bridge to keep it from rocking/tipping (and messing with your intonation) is to hold it forward so that it makes contact with the mute side of the tail piece as you string your bass up. When you tighten your strings, the string tension holds it in place. It shouldn't move again from then on. Mine don't anyway! Then if you need to adjust your intonation, you do it one string at a time. The other three strings hold the bridge in place. I've been doing this for around 6 or 7 years and in that time bridge tipping has ceased to be an issue for me.

rickaddict wrote:I'm not sure if some of you guys are aware of this...a guitar tech at a shockingly dishonest and morally bankrupt Chicago Rickenbacker dealership once showed it to me...All you really have to do with the 4001/4003 bridge to keep it from rocking/tipping (and messing with your intonation) is to hold it forward so that it makes contact with the mute side of the tail piece as you string your bass up. When you tighten your strings, the string tension holds it in place. It shouldn't move again from then on. Mine don't anyway! Then if you need to adjust your intonation, you do it one string at a time. The other three strings hold the bridge in place. I've been doing this for around 6 or 7 years and in that time bridge tipping has ceased to be an issue for me.

Wow, that is a nice solution...I'll have to remember to do that, next string change.
Thanks!