Bending tailpiece - 4 years on

ojobob2 · Post by **ojobob2** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 1:58 pm

hi all, havent posted in ages! years ago i started a topic on the infamous tailpiece lift, and i replaced my bent up (my about 5mm) tailpiece on my '91 4003 with a new one.

Well, heres some interesting observations, the new tailpiece was clearly flat (to the eye) when i recieved it and of a much thicker and more reinforced casting than the original. (I breifly owned a 2002 bass that had a tailpiece that was flush with the body.)

I put it on the bass and it was never truly flat, there was about a 1mm gap present. 4 years later and its lifted even more, a slight amount but certainly a noticable lift. I dont understand it at all, i use the most average, standard set of strings (daddario prosteel 45-105)

Any thoughts?

Lost Coyotes · Post by **Lost Coyotes** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 2:50 pm

Not an expert at all, but I've seen many posts here regarding this. Seems this is a very common problem. The company is supposedly coming up with a new bridge, hopefully in our lifetime. You may want to view this thread -under Rickenbacker Basses -for more information:
The dreaded tail lift

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:49 pm

Don't worry about it Owen, I've owned at least 25 different Rics in my life and all have lifted to some degree except for my 72 4001FL and my 7 screw tailpieces. It has never affected the sound or playing on any of mine. In fact I never really thought about it until I kept reading about it here ad nauseum. You did have a sort of extreme case once though didn't you, like a 90 degree bend? The dreaded tail lift thread is dreadfully boring.

beatlefreak · Post by **beatlefreak** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 5:58 pm

If it concerns you, then it's best to keep low tension strings (such as TI's) on your bass.

jwr2 · Post by **jwr2** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:38 pm

add 2 extra screws and it will be completely flat for ever ...

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 6:49 pm

That's what I say too if it really bothers you, like the early 80's 4003's.

aceonbass · Post by **aceonbass** » Sat Jul 07, 2007 8:42 pm

The only way you can know for sure if a lifting tailpiece has an effect on your sound is if you do an A-B comparison on the same bass between a new and a lifting tailpiece. I had 2mm of lift on one of my RICs. I went down to the garage, drilled the two extra holes, and screwed it down tight. I went back upstairs, plugged in and there was a very noticeable improvement in the low to upper mids and sustain was increased. Now I suppose I could have duplicated these improvements by tweaking the tone on my amp, but I don't think I should have to compensate for a slowly failing part. This is probably the other half of the reason people put BadAss bridges on in the 70's. To RIC's credit, they tried to put in the fix long ago, but asthetics won out over function and they were removed.

jojo99 · Post by **jojo99** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 12:12 am

>>To RIC's credit, they tried to put in the fix long ago, but asthetics won out over function and they were removed.<<

Yeah, but it's been said here a number of times that RIC can sell as many basses as they can make no problem, regardless of minor issues, so it seems contradictory to un-do a factory fix strictly because of aesthetics... especially considering this all occured pre-internet when forums like this weren't around to give immediate feedback to changes... If 4003 sales dipped back then, I'd think it was merely due to normal waxing and waning interest in RIC basses, not because of the look of a split pickguard or bridge screws. Heck, those parts could easily be replaced (for even more company profit) if someone truly wanted a then-new 4003 to look like an older 4001, if that was an issue. The aesthetics that have the most tangible impact are horn/headstock shape, pickguard shape/neck pickup spacing, and color, and those all have changed through the years... IMO, the 'bulbous' headstock redesign had much more impact on the look of the bass than those two tailpiece screws did, but there wasn't a functional need to change the headstock, so ultimately I'm confused by all this LOL

ojobob2 · Post by **ojobob2** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:51 am

Im not worried about the replacement tailpice lifting really, its just an observation. I find it interesting that the new tailpiece never sat flush with the body even when new!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:05 am

>>To RIC's credit, they tried to put in the fix long ago, but aesthetics won out over function and they were removed.<<

It was added at the same time as the truss rods were reversed I believe which made the 4001 a 4003.
Even a brand new 4003's tailpiece end does not press hard against the body as there are no screws there so I don't know how a little lift is going to cause less sustain. On the other hand I could see theoretically how adding two screws could, but on the other hand I have an 81 4003 and had two 84's with 7 screw tailpieces and they didn't sustain any more or any less than any other Ric I've ever owned. A couple of mm or 1/16th of an inch isn't going to hurt anything and is normal as far as I'm concerned.
I think string choice has a much greater impact on sustain than a tailpiece that doesn't contact the body with 100% of it's area. I do think the 7 hole tailpiece was a good idea though.

ojobob2 · Post by **ojobob2** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:12 am

yeh i think the angle/pressure over the bridge saddles can affect sustain, rather than if the entire tailpiece is in contact with the body

jps · Post by **jps** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 3:18 am

I think that those of you who add the two extra screws to the end of the tailpiece and find greater sustain/bottom end are on the right track. The better coupling of the bridge to the body has to be the reason for those improvements.

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to having two screws showing on the back of the instrument that pulled the tail down through the body, as long as it looked good. All it would take are cast-in female threaded posts in the tail.

thinneckrick · Post by **thinneckrick** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 5:39 am

I have owner a couple of dozen ricks in my time and i have noticed quite a bit of difference between the five and seven screw bridges . I have two mid 80's right now and have owned about four other ones . And they all sounded very round and focused all the way up the scale . It seems to me that all the others were just hit or miss in the tone department . I think the seven screw bridge made a big impact on the tone.

mfb · Post by **mfb** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:25 pm

It used to annoy me to no end, when I saw guys playing Aria copies that didn't have tail lift and, despite what anyone might tell me, I doubt it very much that the Rick tail piece was designed to lift.

It's just a bad bit of engineering, hence the added two screws at one time or other.

billy_sacco · Post by **billy_sacco** » Tue Jul 10, 2007 4:46 am

I never really considered this whole thing. When I saw my Ric I bought it immediately. I have an 80s one with the black hardware and two big ol screws on front of the bridge. I am assuming this is the 7 screw bridge? Anyhow I like it. Makes it looks industrial. It would have been nice if they put black screws in but it does add to the mean "slap you over the head" factor in my opinion. And if this whole bridge thing has any affect at all now I am really happy I got her!