Glad that they have finally chosen to address this. When I owned a Ric, I put in the Hipshot replacement. I think I would still prefer the Hipshot, but still, progress is progress even in it's belated.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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.
New 2019 Rickenbacker Bridge
- Thread starter Maestro29
- Start date
-
- Tags
- rickenbacker bridges
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
I meant cookie cutter relative to what every other manufacturer is making. You can't argue with success. That design, love it or hate it, is too iconic to mess with and apparently they still make money with it. They have the right to never change their own products. Fender and Gibson have made re-issues and relic'ed instruments over and over and people still buy them.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
How do you define success?
After playing a 1968 4001 for 30 years I sold it because I grew to hate the hardware on the bass, I sold all of my 4001 and 4003 basses and successfully got rid of the basses that aggregated me.
I guess why Rickenbacker still makes basses with the cumbersome hardware is because people buy those basses … They made the 4004 that didn't have the cumbersome hardware but it got discontinued … maybe it didn't sell enough?
I do admire Rickenbacker for redesigning the 4003s5 into a fully functional bass with no pickup covers, no teeth, no tailpiece, no binding, pickups that work properly, a string spacing that is playable, and no mechanical mute … that will be my next Rickenbacker purchase.
And Fender still makes the same old jazz and p-basses that they were doing in the 60s, but the cumbersome hardware can be removed with a screw driver and taking out 4 screws and in less than 5 minutes the bass is more playable.
I checked out the actual product listing on the Ric website, and I have to say I'm disappointed. If you read further down there is a section with a list of installation steps. If you read steps 5 - 7, a template and additional drilling/additional screws are required to install the bridge. Why wouldn't they make it a drop-in replacement?!? Even the Hipshot replacement bridge that's been around for several years is designed as drop-in.
IMHO, as a company, Ric either doesn't know or doesn't care about customer input. I get the fact that they sell plenty of instruments and therefore maybe don't need to worry so much, but think of how many more they might sell if they actually solicited and listened to customer feedback. It's like they are the poster-children for complacency and too much pragmatism.
IMHO, as a company, Ric either doesn't know or doesn't care about customer input. I get the fact that they sell plenty of instruments and therefore maybe don't need to worry so much, but think of how many more they might sell if they actually solicited and listened to customer feedback. It's like they are the poster-children for complacency and too much pragmatism.
Do the existing (4) holes that were under the bridge saddle still line up? If so, it would just be 4 new hols for the string retainer? I haven't seen one in person yet, but I'm assuming the orignal 4 holes are under the sliding saddles.
Edit: never mind, just looked at the template, so it's 8 new holes. That would make me pretty nervous on a retrofit of an older 4003 with the brittle finish. In theory it would be hidden under the new bridge, so I guess it might not matter.
Last edited:
- Apr 18, 2008
- 16,013
- 1
- 31,725
- Disclosures
- I'm highly opinionated and extremely self-assured
I completely agree. But the bridges used on the 4004s are readily available aftermarket pieces, and the pickups are readily available as well. This makes the prospect of a custom build pretty feasible. I sure love mine!
Now all we have left to b*tch about is the double truss rods! If they drop that and go with the single DA rod used on the AC model, I'll quit my whining. I don't think two rods is bad in theory, just unnecessary on a 4 string, and not worth the big reduction in strength at the headstock. Haven't heard boo about that though.
I like the look of the new bridge , but have no issues with the older ones . I'll keep the old ones on , but I like the look of that new bridge .
I basically copied your bass for my HFII, then gave it away to my son! What the hell was I thinking? I told him if he ever gets hard up for cash, I have right of first refusal.
I will keep the original bridge as I haven't had any problems with it, and I know about the muting problem on my bridge which looks like the same problem is going to occur on the new bridge. There is no way that I am going to potentially wreck my Ric by drilling umpteen holes in it using a far from perfect template. Like others have said a simple drop in would have sufficed.
Sir Paul used them a lot on some extremely amazing and famous Wings albums....
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Just here for the trolls.
I'm happy with my 4003 as is.
I'm happy with my 4003 as is.
Never knew so many bassists palm muted until Rickenbacker bridges are discussed.
Not knowing what the bottom looks like, I’d be inclined to fill the entire bridge route with epoxy right up to the surface if you never intend to go back to the old one. And by bridge route, I mean only the bridge route. Not the mute route.
