Tail-lift a possible cure?
Posted: Wed Jan 12, 2011 12:04 pm
As I posted last year,I have installed a C64 (three screw) tail on my CS which had some lift on its original 5 screw tail.
The C64 tail is great although there is a slight lift of just under 1mm which I am looking into. The look of the three screw tail is the main reason I prefer the old aluminium one (apart from the aluminium saddles on the bridge of course) so when I ordered a new tail I went for the C64 to keep the bass looking more "vintage accurate".
The screws on the outside of the modern tail detract from its look and I think there should have been a bit more work done to retain the "original" look with regards to installing a modern style tail on Vintage Reissue basses.Its interesting that as well as the three screw tail,the C64 had vintage style tuners and some of the roundhead screws on the trc and pickups etc.
The bridge-tailpiece seems to be the only weak detail both in terms of vintage accuracy and mechanical strength which is a pity when compared with the fantastic woodwork and finish of the rest of the VR and CS bass series.
I cant make my mind up as to the absoloute cause of tail lift.
Could the string tension be the only factor?..I am not sure thats the whole story.
I think theres something in the way the space between the bottom of the tail and the recess where the screws holes are for the screws to create a downward pressure on the unit when they are tightened which bends the tail when string tension is added.Some guys have used washers to plug the gap which I am also going to try.
I have looked at the whole tail piece problem and I have arrived at an unusual but old school possible soloution that not everyone will agree with as it means drilling holes.
Reading up about Fender in the 40s and 50s they thought that tone was better with a string through body system.The old 50s Precision and the Telecaster were designed like that. I think Entwistle once said they should have kept that system and used it on the Jazz Bass.
When you think about it theres no reason (apart from it being a bit quicker to re-string by a few seconds)for Rickenbacker basses to have the strings terminate at the four holes at the back of the tailpiece.
I think that if four ferrules were installed front and rear of the body,properly countersunk flush and as discretely close to the string holes at the back of the tailpiece (out of sightlines when looking at the front of the bass),then the bass could be a string through system taking the pressure off the tail and eliminating tail lift.In fact there would be downward force on the rear of the tail.
Alternatively the ferrules could be installed on the top of the body inside the tailpiece forward of the string holes but there would be no downward force on the tail which might not make any difference because theres no upward tension on the tail either (would that be a better system?) and it might be a bit easier to thread the strings that way.
I am seriously considering altering my CS in this way.
What do you think?
The C64 tail is great although there is a slight lift of just under 1mm which I am looking into. The look of the three screw tail is the main reason I prefer the old aluminium one (apart from the aluminium saddles on the bridge of course) so when I ordered a new tail I went for the C64 to keep the bass looking more "vintage accurate".
The screws on the outside of the modern tail detract from its look and I think there should have been a bit more work done to retain the "original" look with regards to installing a modern style tail on Vintage Reissue basses.Its interesting that as well as the three screw tail,the C64 had vintage style tuners and some of the roundhead screws on the trc and pickups etc.
The bridge-tailpiece seems to be the only weak detail both in terms of vintage accuracy and mechanical strength which is a pity when compared with the fantastic woodwork and finish of the rest of the VR and CS bass series.
I cant make my mind up as to the absoloute cause of tail lift.
Could the string tension be the only factor?..I am not sure thats the whole story.
I think theres something in the way the space between the bottom of the tail and the recess where the screws holes are for the screws to create a downward pressure on the unit when they are tightened which bends the tail when string tension is added.Some guys have used washers to plug the gap which I am also going to try.
I have looked at the whole tail piece problem and I have arrived at an unusual but old school possible soloution that not everyone will agree with as it means drilling holes.
Reading up about Fender in the 40s and 50s they thought that tone was better with a string through body system.The old 50s Precision and the Telecaster were designed like that. I think Entwistle once said they should have kept that system and used it on the Jazz Bass.
When you think about it theres no reason (apart from it being a bit quicker to re-string by a few seconds)for Rickenbacker basses to have the strings terminate at the four holes at the back of the tailpiece.
I think that if four ferrules were installed front and rear of the body,properly countersunk flush and as discretely close to the string holes at the back of the tailpiece (out of sightlines when looking at the front of the bass),then the bass could be a string through system taking the pressure off the tail and eliminating tail lift.In fact there would be downward force on the rear of the tail.
Alternatively the ferrules could be installed on the top of the body inside the tailpiece forward of the string holes but there would be no downward force on the tail which might not make any difference because theres no upward tension on the tail either (would that be a better system?) and it might be a bit easier to thread the strings that way.
I am seriously considering altering my CS in this way.
What do you think?
