Chunky necks...

johnashfield · Post by **johnashfield** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 2:49 pm

I was at a rehearsal at the bass player's house. He has a blue 4003 that I am guessing is a 97 or so. The neck on his bass was noticably less chunky than my 2004 4003.

Others have reported someting similar in other threads.

So here is a question...

Theoretically, could one have a luthier change the neck profile without damaging the bass? A refinish would be obvious of course.

Just wondering because the c series has a drastically flatter and slimmer feeling neck, but the truss rod design, and the maple are the same between the basses, so would a 4003 neck break or something if the backside of it was reshaped to a C neck profile?

Did that make any sense?

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:09 pm

I don't know why RIC changed the neck profile. Maybe there were problems with twist and warp or some other issues. Maybe that is what the "kids" are buying these days. What ever the case, the new necks are significantly thicker (front to back) than the older ones. My '98 is nice and thin so the change must have happened after that point. The new profile is definately not to my taste.

Yes, the shape can be changed. A good luthier can do it for you but it will cost you some finish.

jaymi · Post by **jaymi** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 3:44 pm

It may have to do with the rods and how the neck is MUCH more stable than they used to be. It is hard to say. My most recent bass is a 91 and it has a nice slim neck. Come to think of it, all the ones I currently have are slim-necked....

baltimucho · Post by **baltimucho** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:21 pm

Like I mentioned not too long ago, my '84 4003S has a "chunky" neck; a thicker and more rounded radius compared to my '82 4003 and my friend's '84 4003.

Maybe ours are made by the same "chunky neck" dude in the assembly line!

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:53 pm

I think the new ones also have a bigger sound which is probably at least due in part to the necks being bigger. You get used to them very fast or at least I do.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:21 pm

From what i understand the newer truss rod design the rods are not thick enough to stop all the neck warranty issues.it was a good idea- just not as good as it could have been.what do you do redo the rod's or thicken the neck?redoing the whole truss rod design when it works fairly well may be costly and troublesome.thicker neck dont have to mess with the rod's much or at all.

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 8:37 pm

AFAIK the truss rods in the current (post 1985) Rics are the same 3/16" diameter as Gibson and Fender, they work in the same way, and there are two of them. So if the change was made because of neck problems -- and we don't know if it was -- the truss rod design wasn't the issue.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:12 pm

this luthier used to work for Rickenbacker. after seeing about 10 luthier's he was the only one to straighten out my neck problems.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Mon Feb 28, 2005 9:43 pm

Dave i didn't mean to sound harsh this guy knows Ric's like the back of his hand.everyone even luthiers that have been around for a long time said my bass was warped and couldn't be fixed,mark said he could fix any Ric and guess what he did its a 67 4001s and it plays great low action... i can set the bridge so low the strings are laying on the fretboard the neck is straight as an arrow.the best in my opinion.his work is absolutely incredible.

jps · Post by **jps** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:36 am

"he was the only one to straighten out my neck problems"

I think you have been working out too hard!

dave4004 · Post by **dave4004** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 5:46 am

Ken, I don't doubt that he fixed your bass, but he's wrong about the current truss rod system. And if he's who I think he is, I take everything he says about Rickenbacker with a big grain of salt.

The system used on Rics was originally patented by Gibson in the early 1920s. It's been proven to work for 80 years and has been used successfully by many companies. There's no design problem with the rods.

rictified · Post by **rictified** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:10 am

I have a 96 4003 jetglo with a thin neck, and the truss rods work great and are the new style.

rickfan60 · Post by **rickfan60** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 6:23 am

Neck problems are not automatically truss rod problems. Wood is highly variable and can be unpredictable as it ages. The reason that Alembic uses so many laminations in their necks is to prevent the bad behavior of a single piece of wood from distorting the entire neck. RIC uses only 4 pieces of wood with one making up the bulk of the neck. The other three pieces are the fingerboard and the two small maple strips that "pack" the truss rods under the fingerboard. If the largest piece takes on a twist, there is little construction in place to stop it from ruining the neck. The 70's style 4001 neck was inherently more stable because of the way the wood was cut and laminated. It is possible that the thicker neck is a response to material problems. It is getting harder to find good wood.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:02 am

The truss rod system is close to Gibson two totally different designs and shorter scale on the Gibson as for fender you have a severe neck problem you can replace the neck same with Gibson thats where the set necks came in.thicker neck on the new 4003 to me only indicates one thing avoid all or most neck problems from happening,it's not rocket science.

ken_swearingen · Post by **ken_swearingen** » Tue Mar 01, 2005 8:20 am

think about it the 4003 is Ric's standard bass now they have to make it tough enough to withstand most or all playing situations there are people out there that don't want to have to mess with the rods every time the weather changes it has to be very versatile thats my opinion and you goofballs cant tell me any different.Ha.