Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Last week I got a good deal on a 2015 maple glo 4003S and intend on converting it to fretless. I gutted the electronics and installed a set of HB1s and a Dane Wilder harness with the coil taps on the Vol controls. Looks and sounds great so far, nice instrument.......The one thing that concerns me is the thickness of the neck, it's .905 inches at the first fret. I'd like to take it down to .800", anyone here ever thin down a late model Rick neck?

Just remember that you can always take wood off, but you can't put it back if you change your mind. My 4002 is a chunky neck, and I like it like that - less stress on my thumb tendons.

59jazz wrote:Last week I got a good deal on a 2015 maple glo 4003S and intend on converting it to fretless. I gutted the electronics and installed a set of HB1s and a Dane Wilder harness with the coil taps on the Vol controls. Looks and sounds great so far, nice instrument.......The one thing that concerns me is the thickness of the neck, it's .905 inches at the first fret. I'd like to take it down to .800", anyone here ever thin down a late model Rick neck?

Did you play the bass for a while to make sure you were down with it before making those mods?

As to thinning the neck, maybe you could get it X-Rayed to see where the TR channels are, then you can know how much wood you can shave off the back of the neck.

I'd love to see that with a gold guard/TRC and oven knobs! But unless you got a steal of a deal, you'll lose money on it someday. I'd do things like that to a pre-loved bass if you know what I mean.

Scott, although I prefer a shallower neck profile, you do have a point about the muscular structure of the fretting hand.....At 57, mine's not getting any younger. Think I'll leave it like this for awhile and see if I adapt.

Jeffrey, Yes I did spend some time with the bass prior to modding it. I also have a '14 and '88 4003 with the oem singles. I've been itching to use HB-1s with tape wounds for quite some time. If I don't convert this to fretless, I may go the way of mando frets......what I use mostly with my custom builds.

Jason.....man you read my mind, I want to install a gold pg and trc....may end up making them clear and backing them up with gold leafing. I do plan on losing money on this.....I know I won't get back what I put into it.....but it will be a kewl looking and sounding bass.

59jazz wrote:...If I don't convert this to fretless, I may go the way of mando frets....

Making it fretless will in due course make the neck feel thinner. This may be the thing to do.

I think RIC should answer this. They know how much wood you can safely shave off the neck. Just like when John Hall informed us that you can cut up to 2" off the old hairpin truss rods and they still function.

I've heard of people drilling a very small (toothpick size) hole, or series of holes along the back of a neck centerline to locate the truss rod depth. The accepted minimum wood depth under the trussrod is something like 3/16". With a Ric you'd have to know the distance each of the two trussrods is located off the centerline to know where to drill. Easy enough to plug tiny holes if you are refinishing the neck anyway (assuming its a painted neck!). Without knowing the EXACT depth of the trussrods, I'd be nervous as hell shaving it more than 1/16". If you break through to either of the trussrods, the neck is toast, or at least a nasty repair job involving fingerboard removal. You could probably get away with flattening the profile a hair along the centerline, since the trussrods are offset, but I wouldn't touch the neck "shoulders". That would change it from a "C" profile to a "D". It's surprising how little actual difference there is between what people call a "thin" neck or a "baseball bat", sometimes less than 1/8" difference.

It's surprising how little actual difference there is between what people call a "thin" neck or a "baseball bat", sometimes less than 1/8" difference.

Funny thing Alexander, I walked into my darkened setup shop/office this evening (sans glasses) and sat down to grab the nearest bass and proceeded to noodle on it. I thought that I was playing my 4003 with the .880 neck when in fact it was the 4003S with the .905 neck. Both are maple glo and for a brief moment I thought I was playing the one with the thinner neck profile that I favor. So for know, the neck stays "as is". I really like that my '14 and '15 4003 basses have 2 piece quarter sawn necks. My '88 on the other hand is nowhere near as stable.

You'll get used to it. I can pick up any of my instruments and feel comfy with them in a very short time. I used to be pickier about neck shape/profile/thickness, etc. But, I realized that it kept me from owning some really nice instruments so learned to accept them all for what they are, feel-wise. I have laso found that as I get older, the really thin (Jazz Bass-like) necks are more uncomfortable for my fretting hand.

I'm just spitballing here so here's my 2 cents. I'm almost positive that with RIC CNC cutting all their instruments, they have been pretty consistent in size and shape over the past several years. The most recent purchase, my 2015 WS feels very similar, neck wise, to my 2012 4003. That being said, the newer nick profile on the 4003's is more like a shallow D profile where as certain pre CNC instruments were a shout C. The shallow D has less wood mass from the back of the neck to the fretboard. Yes, I just typed "wood mass" ! There for, the truss rod channels are closer to the surface. Remember also, and this probably helps you a bit, the channels are curved. The channels are closest backside surface near the headstock and the where the neck meets the body. This is so the truss rod can exert pressure to pull the neck rearward to counter string tension.

Sepp

Kopfjaeger wrote:...Remember also, and this probably helps you a bit, the channels are curved. The channels are closest backside surface near the headstock and the where the neck meets the body. This is so the truss rod can exert pressure to pull the neck rearward to counter string tension.

Sepp

Isn't that backwards?

Holy crud, yourr right Jeff I had that assbackwards! Damn. Ok, now even a worse idea to attempt a home neck thinning.

Sepp

Kopfjaeger wrote:Holy crud, yourr right Jeff I had that assbackwards! Damn. Ok, now even a worse idea to attempt a home neck thinning.

Sepp

No home job neck thinning here