New Model Rickenbacker Bass!?!

[manchego_eggo]

A body hangs on you with the halfway point between the two attachment points centered between your shoulders - gravity ensures that. Where the scale isd relative to that determines the reach. On a Fender shaped bass, the scale starts at the bridge saddles (about 2" from the right attachment point). The nut is 34 inches to the left of that. The upper horn is the other attachment point on most designs, and on a Fender, it's at the 12th fret, which is 17 inches from the bridge saddles, or 19 inches from the butt end.

If you want a short scale that has 4 inches less reach, you use the same body shape and size, and start the scale at the same place. That will put the nut at 30 inches from the same point relative to your body. As the scale has been shortened, the upper horn will now land at the 10th fret. I've got a bass where the geometry was done this way, the reach is 4 inches less, and I think that's the way to do it - it takes full advantage of the shortened scale to give the player less reach. But noone else does that.

On some short scales the body is shortened, so the upper horn has been moved to the right, which means the center point between attachment points, when it's centered on your body, is moved to the left. If the bridge is still at the butt end of the body, and the upper horn is at the 12th fret, given the 4 inch shorter scale, the upper horn (being at half the scale length from the bridge saddles) is 2 inches closer - half scale is now 15, not 17 inches, so the attachment points are 2 inches closer to each other. The body still centers itself on the mid point, so the bridge (where the scale starts) has moved (relative to your body) a single inch to the left. That gives a minor shift (about an inch), but it is still a shift that increases reach a bit. that design gives you 3 inches less reach than a full scale - not ideal as it could be 4, but it's close.

On this Ric design, the bridge has been moved to the left - the scale starts much further to the left. Looks like it's a 4 or 5 inches of shift. If the body were full sized, that would mean the nut is 4 or 5 inches further out than it could be - about the same as a full scale, but here the body is also downsized, so add an inch more .The nut on this is actually further to the left when hung on your body than it is on a full scale instrument. It's simple geometry.

Yes, I'm a nerd (Physicists are by and large all nerds), but I have really thought about this. If you ponder it enough, and understand geometry, You'll get it.

this is much better said that I could have ever put it.

if you want to try a practical example, next time youre at a music store, play a short scale stingray and then a squier rascal and youll notice the difference bridge position makes.

 

[TheReceder]

I'd agree regarding the impact of Bridge placement on reach to the first fret. I recently purchase a SS Stingray with the bridge nearly on the end of the bass. This leaves the first fret closer to my body than enything I've played. Some people complain that it make the bass feel like a toy.
For me, and my burned out shoulder it's a blessing. I've also got a reverend wattplower that has a little more distance on the bridge and it does make it (slightly) more of a reach. I've played other short scales with the bridge in different positiions and found the same to be true.
That ric is gorgeous, but I couldn't play it comfortably.

 

[TheReceder]

this is much better said that I could have ever put it.

if you want to try a practical example, next time youre at a music store, play a short scale stingray and then a squier rascal and youll notice the difference bridge position makes.

I must have been typing while you posted this.... I'd say great minds think alike, but in my case...I just thought like someone that must have a great mind.

 

[micguy]

this is much better said that I could have ever put it.

You spend 40 years an an Engineer, where you have to explain technical things to folks that aren't as technically minded, you pick up a few skills. Then again, it's still complicated enough that I'm not sure that everyone will get it from that description. If I had a whiteboard, and could see the eyes of the person I'm trying to educate (to see if I need to back up and try again at a particular step), I'm sure I could get most anyone on board.

 

[ctmullins]

A body hangs on you with the halfway point between the two attachment points centered between your shoulders - gravity ensures that. Where the scale isd relative to that determines the reach. On a Fender shaped bass, the scale starts at the bridge saddles (about 2" from the right attachment point). The nut is 34 inches to the left of that. The upper horn is the other attachment point on most designs, and on a Fender, it's at the 12th fret, which is 17 inches from the bridge saddles, or 19 inches from the butt end.

If you want a short scale that has 4 inches less reach, you use the same body shape and size, and start the scale at the same place. That will put the nut at 30 inches from the same point relative to your body. As the scale has been shortened, the upper horn will now land at the 10th fret. I've got a bass where the geometry was done this way, the reach is 4 inches less, and I think that's the way to do it - it takes full advantage of the shortened scale to give the player less reach. But noone else does that.

On some short scales the body is shortened, so the upper horn has been moved to the right, which means the center point between attachment points, when it's centered on your body, is moved to the left. If the bridge is still at the butt end of the body, and the upper horn is at the 12th fret, given the 4 inch shorter scale, the upper horn (being at half the scale length from the bridge saddles) is 2 inches closer - half scale is now 15, not 17 inches, so the attachment points are 2 inches closer to each other. The body still centers itself on the mid point, so the bridge (where the scale starts) has moved (relative to your body) a single inch to the left. That gives a minor shift (about an inch), but it is still a shift that increases reach a bit. that design gives you 3 inches less reach than a full scale - not ideal as it could be 4, but it's close.

On this Ric design, the bridge has been moved to the left - the scale starts much further to the left. Looks like it's a 4 or 5 inches of shift. If the body were full sized, that would mean the nut is 4 or 5 inches further out than it could be - about the same as a full scale, but here the body is also downsized, so add an inch more .The nut on this is actually further to the left when hung on your body than it is on a full scale instrument. It's simple geometry.

Yes, I'm a nerd (Physicists are by and large all nerds), but I have really thought about this. If you ponder it enough, and understand geometry, You'll get it.

I'm with you on the geometry.

Could the bridge and the nut be shifted more towards the end of the body? Yep. That would minimize the reach.

But is that the goal - minimizing the reach to the nut? Maybe for some people. Doing that also sacrifices upper fret access. Which also maybe matters to some people.

I don't have a problem with the reach on a normal bass. Therefore I wouldn't have a problem with the reach on this bass. And I know how to lengthen the strap and angle the neck upwards too.

 

[micguy]

I'm with you on the geometry.

Could the bridge and the nut be shifted more towards the end of the body? Yep. That would minimize the reach.

But is that the goal - minimizing the reach to the nut? Maybe for some people. Doing that also sacrifices upper fret access. Which also maybe matters to some people.

I don't have a problem with the reach on a normal bass. Therefore I wouldn't have a problem with the reach on this bass. And I know how to lengthen the strap and angle the neck upwards too.

Good to know the geometry lesson landed.

Upper fret access can be an issue, which is why cutaways were invented. I like basses with more frets, not because I play up there, but because it forces the design to remove wood in that area, which helps with weight.

And normally I have no issue with reach (i'm tall, with long arms), but recently I "did something" to my wrist - slept on it funny or something, and for a couple weeks, I'd get little twinges when I reached to the first frets (wrist angle) - I spent a couple weeks playing most everything in higher positions, and now it seems to be OK. That sensitized me a bit to the plight of shorter armed people. Getting older, you start to understand physical limitations and ergonomic things that seemed silly when you were young.

 

[CochinoBass]

I see any bass, from any company, with the bridge pickup THAT close to the bridge and I instantly ignore it. WHY do that? This bass has two essentially useless pickups, at least with the 4001/4003 the bridge is usable, but basses like this, and non-Club Hofners etc, with the bridge pickup slammed against the bridge are no-go for me.

 

[manchego_eggo]

You spend 40 years an an Engineer, where you have to explain technical things to folks that aren't as technically minded, you pick up a few skills. Then again, it's still complicated enough that I'm not sure that everyone will get it from that description. If I had a whiteboard, and could see the eyes of the person I'm trying to educate (to see if I need to back up and try again at a particular step), I'm sure I could get most anyone on board.

I would watch that. Ive seen your explanations on various things in the forums and they are always well stated and thought out

I'd agree regarding the impact of Bridge placement on reach to the first fret. I recently purchase a SS Stingray with the bridge nearly on the end of the bass. This leaves the first fret closer to my body than enything I've played. Some people complain that it make the bass feel like a toy.
For me, and my burned out shoulder it's a blessing. I've also got a reverend wattplower that has a little more distance on the bridge and it does make it (slightly) more of a reach. I've played other short scales with the bridge in different positiions and found the same to be true.
That ric is gorgeous, but I couldn't play it comfortably.

Yeah, I had a tough time with my short scale stingray at first but then it clicked. Im on my fourth one now (albeit this is my first american made musicman, the others were imports) and its one of the best built basses I have ever owned. It has kind of ruined other basses for me especially with the shorter reach.

I must have been typing while you posted this.... I'd say great minds think alike, but in my case...I just thought like someone that must have a great mind.

kind words, same to you!

 

[CochinoBass]

I see any bass, from any company, with the bridge pickup THAT close to the bridge and I instantly ignore it. WHY do that? This bass has two essentially useless pickups, at least with the 4001/4003 the bridge is usable, but basses like this, and non-Club Hofners etc, with the bridge pickup slammed against the bridge are no-go for me.

Sorry to quote myself but I meant non-Cavern Hofners in the comment above and its been too long to edit the original comment.

 

[Isaac_James]

I see any bass, from any company, with the bridge pickup THAT close to the bridge and I instantly ignore it. WHY do that? This bass has two essentially useless pickups, at least with the 4001/4003 the bridge is usable, but basses like this, and non-Club Hofners etc, with the bridge pickup slammed against the bridge are no-go for me.

I'm with you on the pickup placement, one of the things I really love about my 4003 is the placement of the bridge pickup being much further away from the bridge than most.

If I recall the neck pickup was also moved in the opposite direction because having it slammed right up against the neck like that created a weak point. I assume this model is also a set neck rather than neck through, not sure if that makes a difference but I'm already wary of hollow and semi-hollow bodies because I live with a 9 year old human hurricane

I don't dislike the aesthetics of the 300 series guitars, but if Rickenbacker does more guitar shaped basses, I really love the look of the 600 series bodies. I'd rock one of these (if the pickup placement were adjusted of course)

 

[woodyng2]

I see any bass, from any company, with the bridge pickup THAT close to the bridge and I instantly ignore it. WHY do that? This bass has two essentially useless pickups, at least with the 4001/4003 the bridge is usable, but basses like this, and non-Club Hofners etc, with the bridge pickup slammed against the bridge are no-go for me.

They’re a GO-GO for me! At least, on these 4002 inspired Ricks…..
A strong humbucker at the bridge with the treble rolled off 3/4 is a glorious sound.
Also the “neck” pickup position has a great sound that’s a perfect balance of beouf and twang.

 

[CochinoBass]

I'm with you on the pickup placement, one of the things I really love about my 4003 is the placement of the bridge pickup being much further away from the bridge than most.

If I recall the neck pickup was also moved in the opposite direction because having it slammed right up against the neck like that created a weak point. I assume this model is also a set neck rather than neck through, not sure if that makes a difference but I'm already wary of hollow and semi-hollow bodies because I live with a 9 year old human hurricane

I don't dislike the aesthetics of the 300 series guitars, but if Rickenbacker does more guitar shaped basses, I really love the look of the 600 series bodies. I'd rock one of these (if the pickup placement were adjusted of course)

View attachment 7451953

Yes, exactly. It was a small amount, about 1/2", but they did move the neck pickup towards the bridge a little. I bought a 4003 new in 1990 and kept it until 2023, there were plenty of times where I used either pickup solo and both with various blend amounts. These basses (and again also Hofners) with the neck slammed all the way against the fretboard and the other pickup slammed against the bridge are very compromised IMO, especially the bridge pickups. Rickenbacker would not need to move the bridge pickup as far forward as the 4001/4003, but an inch off the bridge would make a huge difference.

 

[CochinoBass]

They’re a GO-GO for me! At least, on these 4002 inspired Ricks…..
A strong humbucker at the bridge with the treble rolled off 3/4 is a glorious sound.
Also the “neck” pickup position has a great sound that’s a perfect balance of beouf and twang.
View attachment 7451958View attachment 7451957View attachment 7451959View attachment 7451956

Yeah, but none of those basses have the bridge pickup as close the bridge as the one in the OP, look how far those pickups are from the actual string saddles. The bridge pickup in the OP and the 4005xc are right next to the saddles, probably an inch closer than the ones in your pictures. I am saying Rick should put the OP and 4005 pickups at least where the bridge pickups are in the basses in your pictures, not closer.

 

[Isaac_James]

Yes, exactly. It was a small amount, about 1/2", but they did move the neck pickup towards the bridge a little. I bought a 4003 new in 1990 and kept it until 2023, there were plenty of times where I used either pickup solo and both with various blend amounts. These basses (and again also Hofners) with the neck slammed all the way against the fretboard and the other pickup slammed against the bridge are very compromised IMO, especially the bridge pickups. Rickenbacker would not need to move the bridge pickup as far forward as the 4001/4003, but an inch off the bridge would make a huge difference.

I prefer them further back, personally. I don't even care for jazz basses with 70s positioning

 

[woodyng2]

Yeah, but none of those basses have the bridge pickup as close the bridge as the one in the OP, look how far those pickups are from the actual string saddles. The bridge pickup in the OP and the 4005xc are right next to the saddles, probably an inch closer than the ones in your pictures. I am saying Rick should put the OP and 4005 pickups at least where the bridge pickups are in the basses in your pictures, not closer.

Oh I agree. I owned a 4005 and a Greco Super Beetle back in the early 80s, and found the extreme pickup positions odd.
I didn’t keep either bass very long….

 

[dlmarquez]

This guy is a very cool looking new model. It will be even cooler if is available in an unlined fretless
However I would be equally excited to see the 4004 return…as a fretless!

 

[itsBACKnotBACH]

Same size as a 330

 

[ThudThudThud]

A Ricky without all the nonsense in the way of your plucking hand? Good stuff.

 

[Isaac_James]

Same size as a 330

Those are gorgeous! Does this mean it's a 24.75" scale length?? Is it intended to be a piccolo bass? If so, that's pretty cool, and definitely unique!

 

[Michedelic]

I wonder if Issey will pick up on one…