Trussrod question - Rickenbacker content

[casio]

Hey guys,
I figured this to be the best place to post the qeustion, not wanting to put it in the Basses or Strings section.
In any case, I recently got myself a 1978 rickenbacker 4001, and I've fallen madly in love.
With everything other than one small inquiry.
I've gotten quite a few users recommend that I use a 40-95 gauge for roundwounds, which is damn too thin for what I'm used to. Do you think that putting a 45-100 gauge would drastically destroy the trussrods, or should I be fine?
I noticed that the Ric online manual on their site mentions them putting this gauge on their basses, but they also don't produce the 4001 anymore!
Help would be great!

[DJS]

Probably the first question I'd post is - are Ric necks so thin that this is truly an issue?


String manufactures publish tensions (D'Addario is particularly good) Try to find a set that doesn't have so much. Oddly enough I went through the same exercise recently and found that the tapewounds 50-105 (ETB92) have even less tension than a 40-95 round set (EXL220)

My results:


EXL170 Long Scale 45-100
172 # (total pounds per set)


EXL220 Long Scale 40-95
149 #


EXP170 Long Scale 45-100
163.5 #

ECB80 Set Long Scale 40-95
154 #

EXL160 Long Scale 50-105
202 # (these about killed my poor Ibanez - didn't know any better)

ETB92 Set Long Scale 50-105
141.2#

[Ric5]

You should be able to us a 105 E.

[Ric5]

Putting the wrong strings will NOT destroy your truss rods.

The flaw in the old 4001 basses is that improper truss rod adjustment can damage the neck.

Remember with a 4001 the rods do NOT move the neck. They hold the neck in place. So you loosen the rods move the neck and then tighten the rods.

If you don't know what you are doing then take it to someone who knows how to adjust Rics.

[casio]

Yeah, I'm well aware of the "creative" rod adjustment on the 4001s.
I was just wondering about the string tension affecting the neck.
45-100 is still a bit light for me, since I usually go to 105 or 50-110, but I'm trying to make some kind of a compromise between not stressing the neck too much and getting a bit of a thicker string!
In any case, thanks for the input!

[lug]

I've had sets of 100's and 105's on my 77 Ric since...well....1977. No issues at all.

[JLS]

The problem I see w/Rics, is when the neck angle changes--there's not a whole lot of wood in the heel area. When that happens, you are well and truly screwed; the only fix I know of, is similar to one used for nylon string guitars: remove the fingerboard,
add a long tapered shim to change the angle. The expense is a hideous thing to contemplate.

[Bigjohn]

I've had 45 - 105 gauge roundwounds on my 1974 4001 for a couple decades. No problems ever.
I know a guy who worked at the Rickenbacker factory in 1978. His name may be penciled in your control rout.

Originally Posted by casio

Hey guys,
I figured this to be the best place to post the qeustion, not wanting to put it in the Basses or Strings section.
In any case, I recently got myself a 1978 rickenbacker 4001, and I've fallen madly in love.
With everything other than one small inquiry.
I've gotten quite a few users recommend that I use a 40-95 gauge for roundwounds, which is damn too thin for what I'm used to. Do you think that putting a 45-100 gauge would drastically destroy the trussrods, or should I be fine?
I noticed that the Ric online manual on their site mentions them putting this gauge on their basses, but they also don't produce the 4001 anymore!
Help would be great!

[Ric5]

Originally Posted by Bigjohn

I've had 45 - 105 gauge roundwounds on my 1974 4001 for a couple decades. No problems ever.

+1

I ran roundwounds on my 1968 4001 for 35 years. I used .95 .100 and .105 sets of strings. They all worked fine.