4001C64 Bridge/Pyramid Strings Situation

eddied · Post by **eddied** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:22 am

This comment is addressed to C64 owners and also for John Hall to comment on if possible. I own the 2nd C64 sold by North Coast and have had an issue to discuss. When it first arrived (2yrs ago now), the factory strings produced buzz on the A and E in several locations. After letting it set for a couple ofweeks and tweaking the neck very carefully, I gave up and bought Pyramids for it, which turned out to be THE PERFECT STRING. No buzz anywhere on the neck, perfect action eceptionally close, and perfect intonation. During the past winter the butt end of the bridge started rising off the body much as the older 4001's used to do. Nothing changed on the bass except the lifting off, which really bothered me. After calling the service dept @ Rickenbacker, the worker addressed this issue with John Hall and after a few days I called back and was told by the same person that John thought the Pyramids had too much tension for the C64 design. I have now changed to another flatwound and would never change back to rounds. Will this problem always exist, and WHY can't Pyramids be used successfully when ALL 4001's from that era were stocked with flats. I would really like to be able to put a new set back on, as I stated, they are perfect for the C64,and after playing Ricks for over 35 years, I feel that I'm qualified to state this. IMPUT?

leftybass · Post by **leftybass** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:51 am

FWIW, my '79 4001 LH has a slight lift to it's tailpiece, and I've used the same gauge strings(.040-.095, round wound) for what seems like forever(at least 20 years), and I've owned the bass for 25 years. I can't say other than noticing it that I've had any issues...

johnhall · Post by **johnhall** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:35 am

High tension strings of any type can cause the tailpiece to bow- it's just a fact of life. It doesn't seem to hurt a thing and given the fact that all the originals did so as well and that this model is marketed as a replica, there's no plan to change it.

FYI: their marketing notwithstanding, the Pyramid string is NOT the same as the Maxima string we used in the 60's and has significantly greater tension.

scottpro1969 · Post by **scottpro1969** » Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:43 am

I have Pyramids on my new 4003. Should I expect that this may happen to this tailpiece in the future?? Is the C64 and 4003 TP different?? And, if it will lift, reading JH's comment, there will be no lasting effect??

rickfan63 · Post by **rickfan63** » Thu Apr 14, 2005 2:43 pm

No lasting effect to my knowledge. I've seen a few RIC's like that thru the years, and it dosen't seem to effect them at all. If there had ever been a problem with that, JH would have made adjustments long ago I know.

coreyk · Post by **coreyk** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 12:08 pm

Here's another question for John Hall, then...

John, what is your opinion of the Thomastik-Infeld Jazz Flats as a low tension replacement for the long-gone Maximas?

Corey

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 7:31 pm

I have them on both 96 and a 2000 4003's, the 96 is lifting a little but when I bought it came with med. gauge fender flats which are much higher tension than the pyramids and I'm not sure if it was like that when I got it or has happened since (I suspect it came that way). I won't change to another type because they sound and feel so good, they have the perfect sound for rics to me. If it does lift too high which I doubt I'll drill two holes like the early 4003's had and screw it down. I like the tension on them also, I like a tight playing bass, the sound is more articulate and it's much easier to finger pick, doesn't bottom out easily etc. many advantages with higher tension for finger style players.

maplered · Post by **maplered** » Tue May 03, 2005 4:22 pm

Labella flatwounds seem to work well for me. I've had a set on an 02 4003VP for several years now and the tailpaced hasn't bowed yet.

My advice is never to use Fender flatwounds on a Rick if you don't want any tailpiece bow. I had a set on my 4001C64 and the tailpiece has severe bow. They did sound really good but they just put way too much tension on the bass.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Sun May 08, 2005 1:51 pm

I currently have Lakland Joe Osborn Flats on my 4003 and they are great. Not too stiff like the fenders are (IMHO), supple, great "thud", even sound all around, and great feeling.

maplered · Post by **maplered** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:03 am

I've been meaning to try the Lakland JO Flats but on the Lakland site the light gauge strings are not in stock. Is there anyone else that sells these strings?

iamthebassman · Post by **iamthebassman** » Mon May 09, 2005 11:36 am

I wonder why RIC stopped using the tailpiece with the 2 extra screws at the back as on my '80 4003. It solved the problem.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon May 09, 2005 1:00 pm

Yeah,I got an 81 like that and had an 84, also the early basses had three holes like my 72 and never lifted a MM, strange.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Mon May 09, 2005 2:40 pm

Well, I've never really had an issue with the tailpiece lifting on any of my ric basses, and I am glad they stopped putting the extra screws in them!

It's just one more little detail that mars the beauty of the Rick 4000 series bass. I am just a stickler for details like that. Most people don't care, and that's cool too.

jingle_jangle · Post by **jingle_jangle** » Mon May 09, 2005 2:42 pm

Hi John...Long time no hear.

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Mon May 09, 2005 2:48 pm

I have fallen off the face of the planet in some ways!