• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Isn't neck dive simply a builders flaw?

#121
heatheroo said:
I've been playing a T-Bird for 30 years and I just never got the rap about neck dive (or maybe I've been in denial all these years?). My right forearm sits on the body and counteracts the weight of the neck (and my strap button is in the original location). Its always been a non-issue with me. You do need to have straplocks if you use the original strap button location though.......
Click to expand...

So, here we have a testimonial from a T-bird player of 30 years. Doesn't look like any naysayers have bothered to read it.

heatheroo's experience speaks for itself. You can't call something a design flaw just because YOU don't happen to like it, or can't deal with it. Some people here (at Talkbass, not this thread) have said "bolt on construction is a design flaw", and "non-angled headstock is a design flaw", and the neck dive claim is equally silly. Let's see, what else: "roundwound strings are rough on your fingers, that's a design flaw". Might as well cite any neck profile, string spacing, or scale length that makes your hand uncomfortable.

I could do my job just fine with a neck-divey bass -- therefore, it is NOT a design flaw, even though I *prefer* to avoid basses with neck dive.
 
#124
Honestly, all this talk over lawsuits about NECKDIVE of all things is really testing my ability to use talkbass appropriate language. I hate how, especially in my country, the US, you can sue for just about anything, and win. It's like no one has any ************* responsibility anymore, and oh, I got a little boo boo, let me get $20,000,000 for it and live in a life of ******** luxury while everyone who works for a dang diddly living suffers! Just because you managed to shoot yourself in the eye with a nail gun doesn't mean it's Dewalt's fault. It means your a bleeding idiot. AAAAAAGH. -steps down from soapbox- Personally, I don't mind neckdive TO A DEGREE. It's nice when the bass balances, but IMO, it's not absolutely ESSENTIAL. But if it can go 0 to headstock on the floor in 0.8 seconds, I'm not buying it.
 
#125
Fuzzbass said:
...and not to be flip, but:

what happens when you let go of an upright bass? Design flaw?

:smug:
Click to expand...

Actually if it is my last teacher, nothing happens. The bass stays perfectly balanced against his body. He can even move around a fair amount without holding the bass and it just follows his body even though he has both his hands and arms off of the bass. This is the FIRST thing he tries to teach his students before a single note is played. Funny thing but he seems to believe that unless the player can balance the instrument pretty much effortlessly, there is a problem.

Peace,
S
 
#126
We live in a society where one can sue over anything. Now there is no where that I said I would sue a company over neck dive, but I live in a real world and if some one does decide to sue because they feel and can possibly prove that they have suffered physically, mentally,sexual dysfunction, lost wages. etc, I would not at all be surprised.


Several years ago a friend of mine was driving in down town Chicago and out of no where a guy runs into his car and is injured. My friend doesn't know whats going on, the cops come and arrest the guy. The guy had just robbed a bank and the police were in pursuit. About two years later my friend is contacted by the bank robbers lawyer(the bank robber is in prison). The bank robber sues my friend and wins his case.
 
#127
Yes people can sue over most anything. Still, there are certain legal principals. If a person knows that a hazard exists and does not take action to avoid that hazard, their case is pretty weak. A number of high profile cases, pressure by insurance companies and government regulations have have forced manufacturers and the like to put warning labels on everything we touch.

Now in realm of injury cases, the vast bulk of these cases are settled in a pretty reasonable fashion. Cases that don't have proof of damages and good evidence usually get torn apart. I have lawyers among my family and friends. I have heard many stories and even proofread a lot of legal correspondence.

Yes there are a bunch of well known cases that defy common sense but they are few compared to the total number of cases. Sadder to me are the cases where people are seriously and permanently injured or even killed and they or their family end up with little or nothing. This can happen for a bunch of reasons - no insurance carried by the negligent party, misunderstanding of the legal system, poor counsel, poor medical care and documentation can all come into play.

I have been out of the engineering business long enough that I am probably safe even though I am not carrying insurance. There is always the very remote chance that I could get caught up in a mess but it is less and less likely every day. Much of what I worked on has already moved to the scrap heap.

Sigh,
S
 
#128
TheSuzie said:
Yes people can sue over most anything. Still, there are certain legal principals. If a person knows that a hazard exists and does not take action to avoid that hazard, their case is pretty weak. A number of high profile cases, pressure by insurance companies and government regulations have have forced manufacturers and the like to put warning labels on everything we touch.

Now in realm of injury cases, the vast bulk of these cases are settled in a pretty reasonable fashion. Cases that don't have proof of damages and good evidence usually get torn apart. I have lawyers among my family and friends. I have heard many stories and even proofread a lot of legal correspondence.

Yes there are a bunch of well known cases that defy common sense but they are few compared to the total number of cases. Sadder to me are the cases where people are seriously and permanently injured or even killed and they or their family end up with little or nothing. This can happen for a bunch of reasons - no insurance carried by the negligent party, misunderstanding of the legal system, poor counsel, poor medical care and documentation can all come into play.
Click to expand...


And all this I am familiar with. But I would not be surprised if such a case came forward and the luthier lost.
 
#130
Im not sure how I would answer this. Not to rag on a certain design but lets use the TB as it's been discussed within already.
My opinion is originally it was designed as a bass version of the g%$tar. It got popular and because maybe even at the time it came out it's apparent "neck dive" wasn't an issue. Since that time the players that play these basses know what they are and deal with it. Maybe for the people that can't deal with the neck, this isn't your bass!
Neck dive is nearly the first thing I test in a bass when I try them in person. If it doesn't at least balance with the headstock pointing up a little then it's no good for me.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while I wouldn't call it a design flaw, maybe what the manufacturers/designers of these basses should do is rethink their designs every now and then to maybe overcome these issues. From what I hear Mike Lull has smashed it with his T Birds.
I know I would love me an early 80's BC Rich Mockingbird that didn't neck dive!
I know Warwick Thumbs cop it too, but in defense of their design they are made to be played high and to hang parallel, and I have owned a few Streamers and they balance fine.
I have resigned myself to the fact that while there are some basses I would love to have, because naturally they neck dive they are just not the bass for me.
That's my 2c (maybe a little more!).
 
#131
I dunno it depends. I think many older designs (Fender, Gibson, cough cough) are more prone to neck dive.

Leo created the 51 P-bass. Its extremely primitive and a great example of function over form. He slowly refined it coming out with the split coil like we play today and then later tried to adjust the neck dive issue on the jazz bass (but making the body heavier? :rollno:)

Companies like Fender are stuck in a rut because they can't screw with their classic designs too much. They've done things like lighter weight tuners, etc, to reduce the neck dive.

I never felt the Fender neck dive was glaringly obvious while standing (unlike Gibson) and I view it as an inherent quirk of the design. On newer basses though I see it as a design flaw. I mean c'mon, technology has come a long way in 60 years of electric basses.

FWIW I've owned one bass that I consider to be the perfect bass. I still own it and its my first bass. Its extremely lightweight at slightly more than 7 1/4 pounds. Its got otherside of the fret low action without any buzz or clank. It balances perfectly sitting or standing. Did I mention how much warmth and bloom it has too when you actually plug it in?
I did forget to mention its a P-bass with the old style largeback tuners and fender-style bridge. I sometimes have the bridge cover (not the stock one, but a similar albeit heavier cover) on the bass.
I guess though that it is slightly luck of the draw.
 
#132
There is a basic formula to enable any bass to balance on the lap or strap that works 90% of the time (obviously depending on hardware and woods):

balance.gif


For the lap make sure there is an unbroken curve on the lower part of the bass at the 24th fret. a curve that flattens at the tip (like a Fender) will compromise the effect and the user will often have to hitch the flattened part of the horn on to the lap. Pressure on the upper body with the elbow is also often called for to redress balance in a Fender design

Adjustments can obviously be made with how you pivot the bass in a seated position.

And most people know about the upper horn - bring it to the 12th fret and you're okay on the belt
 
#137
metron said:
Perhaps we live in a society where people do things like this but it wouldn't it be much better if that weren't so? :D Again the idea of such a lawsuit while possible, is completely and utterly ridiculous. At best. :p
Click to expand...
Agree. Many people get carpal tunnel syndrome from computer mouse use- the mouse in question is still sold. Someone in the US is killed in a car wreck every 15 minutes- we still buy cars. Smoking kills someone in the US every minute...and although lawsuits against big tobacco have been fought and won, we still buy/sell cigarettes.
How about guns, knifes, hammers? They can all kill. Propane gas, flammable/poisonous/corrosive liquids? Inherently hazardous.

It's entirely possible to injure yourself playing a properly designed bass, improperly (bad technique, extremely long straps, etc.) A lawsuit such as presented by Jauqo is unlikely to get any sort of traction IMO.
 
#138
This is the defintion of flaw from dictionary.com

"feature that mars the perfection of something; defect; fault: beauty without flaw; the flaws in our plan."

With this in mind if the company designs a specific way and builds a quality version of their design then it is NOT a flaw. Any flaw past that point is a personal opinion as what ruins it's perfection is up to the individual user. Every bass player plays their instrument different. Some wear it up at their neck and some at their knees. You might find it painful to play at your knees but others don't or choose to ignore it. I prefer a horizintal balancing bass while others perfer something way more angled. Because of this there are different basses for eveyone and a bass I own I might not consider to have neck dive because it balances horizontally and that is how I play while someone that wants to play it angled might hate it. The fact that not eveyone will agree is to me proof that it is not a flaw. It was designed that way and just because a user doesn't like the design for a specific reason (balance) does not mean the instrument is flawed. If another user does not experience the same problems then they would NOT consider it to have a flaw.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back