Fender American Ultra II series is here

[BowserGriff]

This thread has a couple of complaints about the truss rod adjustment at the headstock, rather than the neck heel. I like the neck heel location for ease access (except on the vintage Fenders, which require that the neck be removed), but some contributors write that the headstock location is easier for adjustments 'on the fly,' whereas others opine that the cutaway weakens a point of high tension, which is worrisome. My Ernie Ball has the heel 'wheel,' which is excellent, but is the Fender's headstock location a qualify compromise, or just an engineering choice between equals? Why, for example, would Fender go to a quarter sawn neck - more expensive - and then cheap out with a headstock truss rod adjuster? That seems illogical.

I prefer the headstock access because I dont like the look of the cut out at the scratch plate. Both styles are easy to access and even then, how often to you have to easily access it? Once, twice a year? The neck removal one on vintage basses is something i couldn't be bothered with though. Lots and lots of boutique basses have the headstock access too. Im not sure it is cheaping out to have it on the headstock.

Its all a lot of overthinking. We are good at that on TB! Does it play well, sound good? Do you like the way it looks? Unless you have to remove the neck in order to adjust the rod, Im not sure it really matters where the access point is.

 

[Iridescentone]

Will people ever stop regurgitating the falsehood that Fender necks "must be removed to adjust the trussrod" ?

Despite that the easier way (also prescibed by Fender, themselves) has been posted a thousand times here on TB....

My money's on "never".

One more little nit and I'll STFU......It doesn't take a Phillips-head srewdriver, nor a Reed Prince. It's meant to take a slothead screwdriver. Whenever you see a mangled Fender cross-head rod nut, it's usually because someone hacked on it with a...wait for it...Phillips-head driver!