? about Hipshot Bridges for Rics

[Geddyfleaharris]

Not sure if this is the proper forum but seems sensible to me. I am going to put a Hipshot bridge on one of my Ric 4003s. I have a couple of questions.

Hipshot has brass and aluminum bridges - why the 2 kinds of metals? The brass is more expensive (makes sense). But musically is there a tone difference? sustain difference? Any hints or opinions appreciated.

I have read on another thread about having to deepen the bridge saddles on the Hipshots to keep the strings from rolling off. Is this common and something that should just be done automatically?

Thanks in advance.

[elysrand]

Originally Posted by Geddyfleaharris

Not sure if this is the proper forum but seems sensible to me. I am going to put a Hipshot bridge on one of my Ric 4003s. I have a couple of questions.

Hipshot has brass and aluminum bridges - why the 2 kinds of metals? The brass is more expensive (makes sense). But musically is there a tone difference? sustain difference? Any hints or opinions appreciated.

Aluminum is lighter, and is preferred for folks who already had an aluminum bridge. Prior to the mid-seventies, all Rick 4001 and 4000 had cast aluminum bridges, which were light and stiff, resulting in freedom from "tail-lift". They were a superior piece due to their lightness and their strength, and only in the area of sustain (mass-related) were they not optimal. But being neck-through, the 4001 made up for this lacking somewhat. However, the aluminum bridge pieces were expensive and problematic for the factory to make. And their presence on a vintage Rick is part of what makes the older Ricks so valuable.

Later in the the mid-seventies, and continuing through modern times, all Rick bridges have been made of the inferior metal zinc, instead of aluminum. This metal is weaker, and tends to bend more easily under string tension, causing the dreaded "tail-lift" deformity that players complain so much about because is raises the action near the bridge and distorts the necks.

However, Rick does not have to care, business-wise, because their warranties are not very long compared to the lifetime of the bass, and the zinc bridge is less expensive and less problematical for Rick to make/buy (who knows "for sure', despite various statements made over the years by folks high and low, what is reliable when it comes to whether a part has always been made in-house versus bought from outside vendors).

You can tell which metal a Rick bridge is made of, by looking for a casting slot, or void (which looks like it was "cut"), between the A and the D string passthrough in the bridge itself. If it has a factory slot, it is the prized early aluminum model. If it does not have a slot, it is the inferior later zinc model.

Rick has been promising a better bridge piece for too many years, but not delivering, for players to keep waiting. So Hipshot saw a market opportunity to sell both an aluminum bridge for lightness and original "balance" for the player, as well as a brass bridge for more mass and sustain, for players who do not care so much about the changes in weight and balance with brass.

Originally Posted by Geddyfleaharris

I have read on another thread about having to deepen the bridge saddles on the Hipshots to keep the strings from rolling off. Is this common and something that should just be done automatically?

Unlike RIC, who counts on a user always having the RIC-standard strings at first, or similar-gauge replacements due to the relatively narrow neck size range, a manufacturer like Hipshot cannot be sure what bass an aftermarket bridge is placed upon. So, there could be a much wider range of string gauges used with their bridges. So, IMHO Hipshot undercuts their saddle slots, and leaves it to the player to cut them further for their particular application. It really is not a problem, filing the slots a bit, I have found, to get the right fit, even for light-gauge strings.

Originally Posted by Geddyfleaharris

Thanks in advance.

Thanks for asking! I personally like Hipshots, although I am pretty strict about keeping or restoring all my Ricks to factory-original whenever possible. The wild customs that I love to make and play are all Fenderish variants, or else homemade copies of Ricks that I build for "personal use only, never for re-sale"

If you had a 4001, I would without hesitation say get the aluminum one, it is the only choice for that model.

But since you say you have a 4003, my advice would be to go ahead and buy the brass, or even better buy one of each type metal Hipshot (if your budget allows), because you may like the aluminum on your 4003 better due to its lighter weight, or especially with a 4003 you may like the brass better. The brass does tend to sustain a bit better than the OEM zinc bridge that you have, but has a bit heavier "feel" to it that is still usually adequately balanced-out by the heavier neck of a 4003. It really is a matter of individual choice, since I have lots of friends who use both types on 4003 basses and some love the brass and others love the aluminum, and you won't really know which you prefer yourself until you have tried both and compared them both to your factory-stock zinc bendy-bridge

You did not mention intonation, but the Hipshot design also has a wider range of intonation adjustment distance up and down, and has a better mechanism for doing that adjustment.

[Geddyfleaharris]

Thanks for the very informed response Elysrand. I am not one for modding my Rics but I have modded one of my Jetglos. 2 of my 3 4003s I have left unmodded. I figured one more mod wouldn't be too bad; especially because the Hipshot bridges are more adjustable. Nothing I have done is permanent. Changed a white pick guard to black, added some black Hipshot tuners and changed the Horseshoe PU cover out for a Pickguardian surround.

Based on your desciptions I think brass might be the way to go for me! Thanks.

[elysrand]

Originally Posted by Geddyfleaharris

Thanks for the very informed response Elysrand. I am not one for modding my Rics but I have modded one of my Jetglos. 2 of my 3 4003s I have left unmodded. I figured one more mod wouldn't be too bad; especially because the Hipshot bridges are more adjustable. Nothing I have done is permanent. Changed a white pick guard to black, added some black Hipshot tuners and changed the Horseshoe PU cover out for a Pickguardian surround.

Based on your descriptions I think brass might be the way to go for me! Thanks.

Glad to have a few spare minutes this morning to help, Jack! I like the sound you get with that sample tune you guys play on your website, especially the trips up the neck for those riffs, and I hope I get a chance to hear the next tune you record with OCD using that Hipshot-modded JetGlo

I agree with you - reversible mods are the way to go with a Rick.

[pilotjones]

The stiffness of pure zinc is acually higher than that of pure aluminum--but of course, this is complicated by the fact that any product of cast "zinc" or "aluminum" is actually an alloy of one or the other (or both!) with other elements, with its own unique properties.

Further, the idea that a bent tailpiece (if it were actually so) would cause neck distortion is ludicrous. That is roughly equivalent to claiming that if you raise your action, it will invariably result in a warped neck.



Geddyfleaharris - if you do a search on "aluminum brass bridge" you should get at least one thread on this from recently, and many old ones. It boils down to a mafter of fact as to brass being heavier than aluminum, and a matter of varying opinion as to whether the material makes a significant difference, and if so, which is "better."

[Son of Magni]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

The "tail lift deformity" is a myth. Ric bridge/tailpieces are cast with a slight upcurve at the back end. It is their original shape, not a deformation. The string pull would never be enough to cause such a deflection, in either aluminum or in zinc...

I was having a hard time believing that the bridge would bend under string tension. But maybe under very hot stage lighting?

[Jools4001]

What makes a Ric sound like a Ric?

I don't know for sure. Maybe it's the 33 1/4" scale length, or the neck through design, or the maple, or the pickup design, or the position of the pickups, or the design of the bridge.

I don't think it is any one of Rickenbacker's many idiosyncratic design features, but a complex interaction between all these things.

The design of the original bridge is abominable and a real pain to setup (particularly intonation). All I know is that when my '73 Ric wore a replacement bridge for a while it had more sustain all over and more zing to the sound up above the 8th or 9th fret...but it didn't sound as good.

[elysrand]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

The "tail lift deformity" is a myth. Ric bridge/tailpieces are cast with a slight upcurve at the back end.

I just pulled 18 different bridges off the shelf here at the shop, both aluminum and zinc. They are all flat as a board. Tail lift is a well-documented Rick fact. long-proven and recognized among the cognoscenti and casual player alike. Try taking a trip over the the RRF and searching, and you will quickly and objectively see that this is true.

You also missed the fact that the two models of bridges are not the same casting shape underneath - the aluminum ones had stronger and more complete casting ribs underneath. It is more than just the metallurgy that causes the aluminum bridges to be stiffer.....

Originally Posted by pilotjones

Further, the idea that a bent tailpiece (if it were actually so) would cause neck distortion is ludicrous. That is roughly equivalent to claiming that if you raise your action, it will invariably result in a warped neck.

Not so. With a Rick, which has naturally lower action, you will always have difficulty if the strings rise too high off the body, both with clearance around the encircled bridge pickup assembly and with the ability to raise the pickup pole pieces high enough to compensate, particularly due to the more limited vertical adjustability range. The necks just are not as torsionally strong as most non-Rick basses. That is why, among many other reasons, that Ricks have always featured twin truss rods. Properly adjusting the trussrods will only help to a certain point, but not beyond. I have empirically observed this phenomenon with dozens of Ricks that have come in over the years here, and observed hundreds of other skilled players and luthiers comment as well. The tail-lifted bridges are literally bent and remain deformed, even after removing the strings and unscrewing the bridge. To a limited degree, you can bend them back flat and then washer them, but you usually fracture the plating somewhat in the process. If you don't fix the bridge deformation and reduce it back to its original perfect flatness when strung to tension, you lose the ability to get that perfect low-action "one sheet of paper" fit at the 12th fret and still not have fretbuzz at the fifth to eight, if you still have taillift. We actually have a three-washer mod for factory zinc bridges that also helps fix it, but not nearly as well as having an original stronger aluminum bridge.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

I hate to see Ric fans fall prey to the same BS mythology that plagues the Fender community.

I would hate for anyone to try to promote BS mythology about Ricks too. That is why I am gently pointing out that you are comparing apples to oranges here. Fenders don't have this issue because they do not have this bridge design or the same prerouting under their bridges, which makes taillift on a Rick worse if a player tries to tighten the bridge mounting screws too tight as well.

[daveman50]

The Hipshot replacement bridge is a totally different design from the stock bridge. The only similarity is the size of the baseplate and the location of the screwholes. The Hipshot is a "normal" bridge with saddles that sit directly on a solid base plate and are individually adjustable. The Ric bridge uses unique wedge-shaped, notched saddles that are set into a common piece called a "bridge assembly", which is set into the tailpiece via 2 adjusting screws. The saddles cannot be individually adjusted for height and it is very difficult to make any side-to-side adjustments due to how the saddles are notched. The bottom of the unit is not flat but has casting voids.

I have always believed (based on owning a Ric for 35 years, as well as many other basses) that the bridge design is a significant part of the Ric sound. I have played Rics with both aluminum and zinc bridges and I have never heard a difference on that basis.

I would be interested if someone has sound clips comparing these different bridges on the same instrument. I would guess that the Hipshot (whether aluminum or brass) will change the sound -- but prove me wrong!

[daveman50]

PS - on the statement that a Ric has "naturally lower action", I disagree with that. Any bass properly manufactured and set up can have action as low as you want. One of the problems with the Ric design is that the saddles have a very limited downward range of movement. Since it's a neck-through instrument, the amount of adjusting you can do at the bridge to compensate for any neck issues is very limited.

[BassJunkie730]

hipshot quality is second to none.

I've never had to file in a deeper groove in one of their bridges and I've had three.

i have no experience with their Rick bridges BUT - I'll echo Ely's comments, Buy both - try them out and send one back that you don't dig.

the brass bridge will be HEAVY!

I have a brass b-style bridge that is twice as heavy as an aluminum b-style bridge. and there's more metal in a rick bridge

[pilotjones]

Originally Posted by elysrand

I just pulled 18 different bridges off the shelf here at the shop, both aluminum and zinc. They are all flat as a board.

You mean, if you press the bridge downwards on a flat hard surface, putting the pressure at a point between the mounting screws, that there is no tail lif at all? See, this bothers me. I now know of one shopkeeper (you) who says that an unused bridge has absolutely no lower surface curvature, and one in the past who said he always notes underside curvature on a new bridge.

Tail lift is a well-documented Rick fact. long-proven and recognized among the cognoscenti and casual player alike. Try taking a trip over the the RRF and searching, and you will quickly and objectively see that this is true.

I would put a certain amount of faith in those Ric forum testimonials, just as I put a certain amount of faith in similar ones on Fender forum. Some, limited, amount. Unfortunately the internet is a place where people with no good grounds for an opinion often find sureness with little true justification. I'd really like it if John Hall made a statement though.

You also missed the fact that the two models of bridges are not the same casting shape underneath - the aluminum ones had stronger and more complete casting ribs underneath. It is more than just the metallurgy that causes the aluminum bridges to be stiffer.....

That's a good point. Do you think you'd be able to post a pic or two of the two types flipped over? I'd like to see what they (Ric) do in the casting, and try to figure out why they might leave themselves open to, and then persist with, a significant design flaw. I've been getting involved with casting design and procurement over the past year (aluminum, zinc, iron, and steel), and and any enlightenment would be welcome.

Not so. With a Rick, which has naturally lower action,

How do you mean? I'd believe that Ric players might have a tendency to go for a lower setup, but, assuming a "normal" action curvature shape, you shouldn't automatically be able to get a lower setup on a Rick. In theory, I think it would have to be higher, given the same set of strings, due to the lower tension with the shorter scale allowing greater string excursion.

you will always have difficulty if the strings rise too high off the body, both with clearance around the encircled bridge pickup assembly and with the ability to raise the pickup pole pieces high enough to compensate, particularly due to the more limited vertical adjustability range.

I am not quite following here. Are you saying that the casting curves up, taking the bridge area with it, resulting in an inability to lower the strings far enough?

The necks just are not as torsionally strong as most non-Rick basses.

Again to clarify, and assuming you mean stiffness and not strength, are you really talking about torsional stiffness here? That would be resistance to neck twisting (as in E string end of the nut high and G string end of the nut low). Or are you talking about bending stiffness (which seems more likely)?

That is why, among many other reasons, that Ricks have always featured twin truss rods. Properly adjusting the trussrods will only help to a certain point, but not beyond. I have empirically observed this phenomenon with dozens of Ricks that have come in over the years here, and observed hundreds of other skilled players and luthiers comment as well. The tail-lifted bridges are literally bent and remain deformed, even after removing the strings and unscrewing the bridge.

A couple of questions.

First, are the Rick basses shipped with the strings tensioned? Second, are the bridges on them lifted when they are received? Third, does the lift increase with time? Does a 30 year old 4001 have twice the lift of a 15 year old one, and three times the lift of a ten year old one? There are several types of deformation to consider here: elastic, plastic, and creep, which has two sub-stages which would be applicable here.

I would hate for anyone to try to promote BS mythology about Ricks too. That is why I am gently pointing out that you are comparing apples to oranges here. Fenders don't have this issue because they do not have this bridge design or the same prerouting under their bridges,

Right. I wasn't implying that the same specific sorts of issues arise in Fender basses, rather that there is potential in both forums for the same kind of ill-advised, self-propagating opinion formation.

which makes taillift on a Rick worse if a player tries to tighten the bridge mounting screws too tight as well.

I wonder how often an owner might induce a lift by over tightening front-end screws, tipping the bridge forwards.


BTW, (seriously, not sarcastically) how does a guy come to have 18 virgin Rick bridges of mixed metals and vintages all at once?

[Jools4001]

Originally Posted by daveman50

The Hipshot replacement bridge is a totally different design from the stock bridge. The only similarity is the size of the baseplate and the location of the screwholes. The Hipshot is a "normal" bridge with saddles that sit directly on a solid base plate and are individually adjustable. The Ric bridge uses unique wedge-shaped, notched saddles that are set into a common piece called a "bridge assembly", which is set into the tailpiece via 2 adjusting screws. The saddles cannot be individually adjusted for height and it is very difficult to make any side-to-side adjustments due to how the saddles are notched. The bottom of the unit is not flat but has casting voids.

I have always believed (based on owning a Ric for 35 years, as well as many other basses) that the bridge design is a significant part of the Ric sound. I have played Rics with both aluminum and zinc bridges and I have never heard a difference on that basis.

I would be interested if someone has sound clips comparing these different bridges on the same instrument. I would guess that the Hipshot (whether aluminum or brass) will change the sound -- but prove me wrong!

Daveman. I defer to your greater experience of owning a Ric (I've only owned one for 32 years ).

As I said up there ^^^^ , periodically I get so frustrated by the inadequacy of the stock bridge design because it is such a pain to set up. Once the bridge assembly is placed into it's slot in the tailpiece, it is virtually impossible to get to the saddle adjustment screws, so you have to slacken all the strings and take the assembly out to make a tweak, then put it all back again. Somebody may have found a better way, but I've found that, even with right angled screwdrivers, it's impossible because the screw heads are partially masked by the tailpiece.

In addition to all of that, the saddles have a relatively small range of movement and with some string sets the saddles don't go back far enough. You can solve that by flipping them round so that the steeper side of the saddle faces backwards (not all string sets require this), but once again it takes a lot of fiddling.

As if that is not enough, the bridge assembly sits in the tailpiece and the whole deal is raised by the two machine screws on either side and this means that the whole of the assembly is effectively balancing on these screws, and it can rock forwards or backwards under string tension. This leads to even more issues with intonating the beast correctly and it also means that any mechanical coupling between the string and the body relies on these two small screws and any random contact that the assembly has with the tailpiece.

The whole of the Ric bridge/tailpiece design is deeply flawed (the only elegant solution is the string damper that no-one uses). It is deeply frustrating and I hate it.

But...I also love it.

In an effort to rid myself, once and for all of Ric bridge woes I had a Badass II fitted (thankfully with no permanent mods to the bass) then reverted to the original, then fitted a hipshot aluminium bridge when my frustration boiled over again.

In both cases the replacement bridges added to the sound everywhere. There was a deeper and more harmonically complex sound to the open strings and in the first few positions. Going up the fretboard there was a more articulate and more clearly defined quality (especially up around the 15th-20th frets - even more pronounced on the E and A strings). On top of that, harmonics were more crystalline and would ping out at the slightest touch, even "difficult to get" harmonics around the second fret were well defined. So, more of everything, everywhere!

For the first few weeks this greater clarity is very seductive (I had the Badass on it for 2 years so VERY seductive), but ultimately it doesn't sound like a Ric should, not to my ears anyway.

So I've now put the original bridge back on and everything sounds as it should (no A/B sound clips though). The hipshot has gone to the great eBay in the sky and the Badass is in my parts drawer awaiting reassigment to a parts P-bass project.

Despite all the gnashing of teeth it causes I won't be replacing the Ric bridge again.

[Ric5]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

The "tail lift deformity" is a myth.

I have seen and fixed the tail lift on several Ric basses ...

The simple addition of 2 screws fixes the problem. During the 80s many Rics came from the factory with the 2 extra screws.

[daveman50]

Jools4001: only 32 years. Youngster!

A great post. I totally agree the stock bridge is a PITA... but I rarely need to adjust it.

Your experience with swapping the bridge out confirms my suspicion that the original design is a big part of the Ric sound.

Here is the offending part on my bass (sorry for the low light & camera shake).

[Ric5]

Originally Posted by Geddyfleaharris

Not sure if this is the proper forum but seems sensible to me. I am going to put a Hipshot bridge on one of my Ric 4003s. I have a couple of questions.

Hipshot has brass and aluminum bridges - why the 2 kinds of metals? The brass is more expensive (makes sense). But musically is there a tone difference? sustain difference? Any hints or opinions appreciated.

I have read on another thread about having to deepen the bridge saddles on the Hipshots to keep the strings from rolling off. Is this common and something that should just be done automatically?

Thanks in advance.

The Aluminum one is brighter sounding. Also the hipshot allows easy palm muting, and the hipshot allows for easy intonation. The hipshot bridge looks more Ric like than other after market bridges like the bad ass bridge. And it is a drop-in totally reversable mod that only requires a screw driver.

[SGD Lutherie]

Originally Posted by elysrand

You can tell which metal a Rick bridge is made of, by looking for a casting slot, or void (which looks like it was "cut"), between the A and the D string passthrough in the bridge itself. If it has a factory slot, it is the prized early aluminum model. If it does not have a slot, it is the inferior later zinc model.

There's more to it than that. I have two '73 Ricks, and the March '73 has the split bridge, while the August '73 has the newer bridge.

Are the old ones aluminum? They both weigh about the same. The split bridge weighs slightly more, as it has more metal. The bottom side of the split is quite different, with more metal on it, while the newer bridge is mostly hollow, so they added the two screws to stop it from lifting. The split bridge appears to have been sand cast.




There are a lot of good bridges made from zinc, such as the Badass bridges, as well as bridges from Schaller and Gotoh.

As far as the tone of aluminum v. brass. I don't like the tone of brass bridges. They have a lack of crispness in my opinion.

I recently switched the bridge on my bass from a Gotoh to an aluminum Hipshot type A bridge. I think the tone is much better with the aluminum bridge. More open and with a very clear low end.

[SGD Lutherie]

Originally Posted by daveman50

PS - on the statement that a Ric has "naturally lower action", I disagree with that. Any bass properly manufactured and set up can have action as low as you want. One of the problems with the Ric design is that the saddles have a very limited downward range of movement. Since it's a neck-through instrument, the amount of adjusting you can do at the bridge to compensate for any neck issues is very limited.

Since they have no neck angle, they have the bridge section of the tailpiece recessed into the body to get it low enough.

I also disagree that they have "naturally lower action", but they were generally set up pretty well from the factory, and they have those really low frets, so they always had a fast feel.

[SGD Lutherie]

Originally Posted by daveman50

Jools4001: only 32 years. Youngster!

A great post. I totally agree the stock bridge is a PITA... but I rarely need to adjust it.

Your experience with swapping the bridge out confirms my suspicion that the original design is a big part of the Ric sound.

Here is the offending part on my bass (sorry for the low light & camera shake).

You want to sell that bridge? I have lost the bridge part of my split tailpiece. I want to restore that bass, but the bridge unit from the newer tail doesn't fit. I may have to make one for it.

They are an awful bridge to adjust... and they would lean over to one side and throw the intonation off. I drilled two holes for the hight adjust set screws to sit into to stop them from tilting.

I'm putting a Hipshot on the other bass, since I'm not going to restore that to stock condition.

I modified the heck out of both my Rics, and I had them since they were new.

My March '73 in it's current condition. That's a big honkin' hole in that pick guard, huh? Had a Gibson sidewinder in there.

[elysrand]

Originally Posted by pilotjones

You mean, if you press the bridge downwards on a flat hard surface, putting the pressure at a point between the mounting screws, that there is no tail lif at all? See, this bothers me. I now know of one shopkeeper (you) who says that an unused bridge has absolutely no lower surface curvature, and one in the past who said he always notes underside curvature on a new bridge. I would put a certain amount of faith in those Ric forum testimonials, just as I put a certain amount of faith in similar ones on Fender forum. Some, limited, amount. Unfortunately the internet is a place where people with no good grounds for an opinion often find sureness with little true justification. I'd really like it if John Hall made a statement though.That's a good point. Do you think you'd be able to post a pic or two of the two types flipped over? I'd like to see what they (Ric) do in the casting, and try to figure out why they might leave themselves open to, and then persist with, a significant design flaw. I've been getting involved with casting design and procurement over the past year (aluminum, zinc, iron, and steel), and and any enlightenment would be welcome.

David has posted some excellent photos of the two bridge types above, so I would refer to those photos. As you can tell, except for the portion that is intended to project down into the routed recess, the billet-surface portion of the casting's underside (that contacts the wood surface) is flat.

It is likely that the older aluminum bridges were cast from Aluminum Alloy A356, which is sorta the "industry standard" for casting aluminum. It is pretty versatile, since you can solution heat-treat it, it works well with either sand-casting or perm-mold casting, and it has good machining properties as well. IIRC it is something like 92.7% aluminum, 7% silicon, and 0.3% magnesium.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

How do you mean? I'd believe that Ric players might have a tendency to go for a lower setup, but, assuming a "normal" action curvature shape, you shouldn't automatically be able to get a lower setup on a Rick. In theory, I think it would have to be higher, given the same set of strings, due to the lower tension with the shorter scale allowing greater string excursion.

That was a muddled statement on my part, and I would retract it if I could, because it does not say what I meant. I instead meant to refer to the fact that the string spacing and low action that Ricks traditionally have lead most players that I know to use a pick with a Rick, hence the need for a very low action. It is not automatic, just preferred. To get the right string angle across the saddle, they had to retract the bridge down into the billet with body routs. The bridge saddle assembly insert will not allow you to adjust much farther down, since it physically bottoms out in the bridge casting, and if you try to adjust it higher then the two little screws let the bridge tip forward or backwards and result in instability. The saddle assembly really is more stable as it gets closer to bottoming out. There is then a fairly narrow range within which it works optimally, much narrower than another design.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

I am not quite following here. Are you saying that the casting curves up, taking the bridge area with it, resulting in an inability to lower the strings far enough?

yes. in some extreme cases, it lifts to a 20 to 45 degree angle or more, making it impossible to play.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

Again to clarify, and assuming you mean stiffness and not strength, are you really talking about torsional stiffness here? That would be resistance to neck twisting (as in E string end of the nut high and G string end of the nut low). Or are you talking about bending stiffness (which seems more likely)?

Torsional refers to neck twist, of course. The double truss rods allow you to correct twist in the neck, and provide additional resistance to non-torsional bending as well (when compared to a single rod of equivalent diameter and length), but the whole thing is more complicated than that, and has to do with distortion of the otherwise flat string plane along the length of the neck if you try to compensate for the lift just by tightening the truss rods. Frustrating to intonate, to avoid fretbuzz for finger-pluckers, and to play with a pick on the higher frets as well.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

A couple of questions.

First, are the Rick basses shipped with the strings tensioned?

yes, fully tensioned to the correct EADG tuning at the factory before shipping.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

Second, are the bridges on them lifted when they are received?

not usually, it takes time, often well beyond the one-year warranty period.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

Third, does the lift increase with time?

different examples act differently, many players do not see lift, but many do. Most players themselve affect the lift by overtightening or using heavier-than-recommended string gauges.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

Does a 30 year old 4001 have twice the lift of a 15 year old one, and three times the lift of a ten year old one?

there is no firm linearity of effect over time observed, again it varies from guitar to guitar

Originally Posted by pilotjones

There are several types of deformation to consider here: elastic, plastic, and creep, which has two sub-stages which would be applicable here.

The old ones, according to John Hall I believe, were mostly sandcast by hand in the Electro plant in low volume and were labor-intensive to produce, but as time went on it became too much of a risk and safety issue, not to mention production rate issue, according to John Hall some time back on the RRF. After all, aluminum casts at or above 700 degrees centigrade, while zinc casts at only 540 degrees C or so (540 is for optimal flow, zinc will melt at only 420 degrees C), so lower temperatures and a non-sand mold technology was a better choice, as well as sending it out of house entirely to one of several commodity zinc foundries. The zinc alloy those foundries probably used was a Zamack-style, like ZA-27, which is kinda standard too in the industry. Its fumes are hazardous, especially when overheated, but it allows for thinner casting sections. I think the issue Rick has had with zinc is that the sections are too thin, and should have been made thicker like the old aluminum bridges were.

If it had been me, I would have used a more creep-resistant zinc-aluminum alloy of zinc with between 5% and 15% aluminum, 0.1% manganese, 0.1% magnesium, or a balanced combination of manganese and lithium. I don't think RIC specified/did that.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

I wonder how often an owner might induce a lift by over tightening front-end screws, tipping the bridge forwards.

Such well-intentioned overtightening does happen, usually as a result of an owner seeing the tail lifting for the first time, but instead of correcting it, overtightening exacerbates tail-lift.

Originally Posted by pilotjones

BTW, (seriously, not sarcastically) how does a guy come to have 18 virgin Rick bridges of mixed metals and vintages all at once?

Being addicted to GAS and RAS since 1971, that's how! Seriously, I started playing professionally in 1969, bought my first 21-fret 4001 in 1971 in New Orleans, and still play mostly Alembic and Ricks, with some Fenderish basses for good measure. What is worse, I keep buying basses I like and rarely if ever sell any of them. Most of those basses are NOS and pristine examples of the originals, and so I never remove parts from them. They are mostly preserved in original condition, since I can only play a few of them at a time in gigs and my favorites change over time. Others are vintage but were modified at one time or another, or are all-original but so in need of a refin that they will be worth more after refin than in their current state. Just my parts shelves have the parts from at least a hundred such vintage basses, with most of them undergoing restoration. It is those shelves from which I pulled the Rick bridges. Plus, the luthierie area with new parts for hundreds of new basses and guitars in the process of buildup.