I don't know why people hate on Fender bridges...

[Dark Horse]

Right? The Fender bridge would be perfect if it just had a quick release.

This thread *almost* makes me want to buy a bunch of Fender bridges and modify them to sell. Almost. But then i don't need the mods, so it just seems like adding work to an already busy schedule. However, there might be a niche market there for someone with time and some simple tooling.

 

[Smallmouth_Bass]

I prefer having to string through a hole. I recently changed some strings on a quick release style bridge and I didn't like the difficulty of holding the string in place at the bridge until there's enough tension on the string. That being said, I don't change strings very often and have only broken a string once (not on a gig).

I don't know that I'd be able to tell a difference in tone from a simple Fender bent plate bridge compared to something more fancy. If it's adequately adjustable and fully functional, it's good to me!

 

[Spencer!]

This thread *almost* makes me want to buy a bunch of Fender bridges and modify them to sell. Almost. But then i don't need the mods, so it just seems like adding work to an already busy schedule. However, there might be a niche market there for someone with time and some simple tooling.

I'm so fed up with bridge woes that I've thought about drawing up some plans and having my metal shop make them. Maybe I'll get to it if I have some time this summer.

 

[Pilgrim]

I dont like fender or gibson bridges.

Duly noted in this and many past posts.

Keep in mind that companies like gotoh, schalller, baddass, became famous and rich from all the peeps buying them to replace the terrible fender bridges on their fenders.

Providing one agrees - as many on these forums do not - that Fender bridges are terrible, this might be a defensible assertion. But it's not.

Many of us disagree with that assumption, and there are millions of electric basses out there, owned by millions of people, and those people have different tastes in hardware and often have preconceived (though unsubstantiated) notions about the suitability of Fender bridges. In that situation, it's not surprising that a substantial industry in changing bridges on Gibsons, Fenders and many other brands exists.

People dislike Gibson bridges; they dislike Epiphone bridges (especially the 3-point); some dislike the rather elegant but complex Hagstrom bridges. Pick a bridge, and you will find people who dislike it. Pick a bridge on a bass with big production numbers, and you will find plenty of people who dislike it.

Bridge replacement is simply part of the music industry. It's not a Fender issue at all.

 

[walterw]

Makes you wonder why Leo could never think of something that simple.

Right? The Fender bridge would be perfect if it just had a quick release.

you guys are kidding, right?

as designed, the original fender bridge had a chrome cover bolted over it!

the customer couldn't even see it, much less do "quick change" restrings!

i suspect leo originally had the idea that the owners wouldn't change strings, maybe even returning the bass to the factory for that.

besides, that would have required several additional manufacturing steps, something leo tried to avoid whenever he could without sacrificing function.

 

[mmbongo]

you guys are kidding, right?

as designed, the original fender bridge had a chrome cover bolted over it!

the customer couldn't even see it, much less do "quick change" restrings!

i suspect leo originally had the idea that the owners wouldn't change strings, maybe even returning the bass to the factory for that.

besides, that would have required several additional manufacturing steps, something leo tried to avoid whenever he could without sacrificing function.

lol, you're right! I forgot that the bridge originally had a cover over it. Nothing beats taking your bass apart so you can change strings. Of course this is the same bass that requires the neck to be removed to adjust the truss rod.

I can't see it being more manufacturing steps than making that big old cover, though. It would have been less steps to just make the bridge slots quick change.

The main thing that baffled me was the fact that MusicMan and G&L bridges have the same design. Still do. Sterling Ball comes up with all these ground breaking designs..yet the bridge is straight out of the 50's.

 

[Pilgrim]

i suspect leo originally had the idea that the owners wouldn't change strings, maybe even returning the bass to the factory for that.

besides, that would have required several additional manufacturing steps, something leo tried to avoid whenever he could without sacrificing function.

Good point! Consider this - upright bass strings last a long time, and it seems reasonable that Leo would have assumed his customers' strings would also last a long time. I don't think he was concerned at all about quick changes...or frequent changes.

The set of flats I've had on my '63 P since 1972 tend to bear out his assumption.

 

[Spencer!]

besides, that would have required several additional manufacturing steps, something leo tried to avoid whenever he could without sacrificing function.

I don't know about back then, but today's punch presses can do all of the cuts in one step. It would cost pennies more to add quick release slots.

 

[John D]

Just like a P bass thread...

Many people simply refuse to believe that the Fender bass was the first and got it right. I can see the logic there and I used to be that guy who didn't want a Fender. I mean, how can the first generation of basses still be the best? Everything has been improved upon in the last 60 years, right?

Well, turns out - wrong.

Leo was a visionary, lets just face that fact. He took the most simple approach and it turns out that it is still the best. And I can see how that burns a lot of peoples britches - I mean, c'mon man! How can it still be the best?

It just is.

+1,,

 

[96tbird]

Quick change, schmick change! So you blow a string at a gig, it takes exactly three seconds longer to stab it through a hole as it does to lay it in a slot. The band will be off the stage exactly three seconds longer. Even if it takes thirty seconds longer, really, what's the diff? Really.

Caveat: DR coated strings; quick change is easier on the K3.

 

[JimiLL]

Just because you dont like Ric or Gibson doesnt in turn make the Fender any better.

I personally love the warwick 2 piece bridges, shaller makes some nice ones as well

 

[walterw]

now as for the single-groove '70s fender bridges, i'll hate on them all day long!

the strings end up pulling the G saddle away from the rest of them, allowing them all to slide around and rattle.

i've posted this picture before, but:

not only do the saddles drift apart, but the spacing isn't even right for jazz pickup magnets.

the earlier threaded-rod versions don't have either problem (just like leo intended) because spreading the strings out to line up between the magnet pairs where they belong also pulls the outer saddles in towards the middle ones, holding everything together:

i think this a big difference, and needs to be specified when we talk about "fender bridges".

 

[georgestrings]

Just because you dont like Ric or Gibson doesnt in turn make the Fender any better.

I personally love the warwick 2 piece bridges, shaller makes some nice ones as well

Let's put it this way - on both the Ric and Gibson bridges, I had to file a couple of saddle grooves, so that the bridge matched up well with the neck radius...


- georgestrings

 

[mongo2]

not only do the saddles drift apart, but the spacing isn't even right for jazz pickup magnets.

the earlier threaded-rod versions don't have either problem (just like leo intended) because spreading the strings out to line up between the magnet pairs where they belong...

At proper string to polepiece distances the magnetic field between the polepieces is a continuous strip with no discrete "pools" so the precise position of the strings in the field between the poles is flexible. For verification check with EMG magnetic field viewing tape held just under the strings of a properly setup bass. The centering of the string precisely between the the poles is basically an aesthetic issue.

 

[gfaulkner]

At proper string to polepiece distances the magnetic field between the polepieces is a continuous strip with no discrete "pools" so the precise position of the strings in the field between the poles is flexible. For verification check with EMG magnetic field viewing tape held just under the strings of a properly setup bass. The centering of the string precisely between the the poles is basically an aesthetic issue.

This has been my experience through owning three J basses and all having slightly different pick-up locations.Distance of string from the p-up has a larger impact on tone than position over poles.I don't get the argument about string damage from being pulled through the hole on Fender style bridges.If you play stainless steel strings,they're harder than the bridge itself.

 

[mmbongo]

You ever try to remove then re-install a silked string on a Fender bridge? The silks end up looking like this:

Link Removed

 

[RED J]

Hey I know ! I'll put on a rosewood bridge with a quick change taipiece like my Hofner on my Fender,then I won't have to thread the string through a hole !

 

[crobasster]

In 32 years of playing bass, I've never once "ruined" strings by loading them through the hole in a Fender bridge. Not once. If you're ruining strings, then you are doing something wrong. Load them straight through with the saddle flipped sideways, pull aside slightly, re-seat saddle, put string on saddle...pretty simple, takes mere seconds.

+1

 

[georgestrings]

You ever try to remove then re-install a silked string on a Fender bridge? The silks end up looking like this:

Link Removed

Maybe after 4 or 5 times of taking the string off and putting it back on, although generally I don't do that very often - do you???


- georgestrings

 

[Dbassmon]

now as for the single-groove '70s fender bridges, i'll hate on them all day long!

the strings end up pulling the G saddle away from the rest of them, allowing them all to slide around and rattle.

not only do the saddles drift apart, but the spacing isn't even right for jazz pickup magnets.

i think this a big difference, and needs to be specified when we talk about "fender bridges".

Vintage Fender bridges (and tuners for that matter) were really pretty terrible. On my 72 Pbass, vibration of the bass would cause the height adjustment screws to vibrate and turn and lower the saddle as the night wore on. Stamped metal was cheap, simple design but not great.

Modern Fender bridges are just fine, no problem. Better machining, higher density metal,nicely finished.

Many may have other preferences, but as utility piece of hardware, works perfectly fine!

For those of you worried about quick release, I have a solution; cut the string with a string cutter. Much faster than any quick release. Snap and the string is off both tuner and bridge in one motion.

As far as Rick and Gibson bridges go, they are attached to Rick and Gibson basses which is for me, far more of an issue that how the bridge works.