• 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.

Of Rickenbackers and Swimming Pools

mellowinman

mellowinman

Free Man
Oct 19, 2011
11,818
18,518
63
Minneapolis
#1
There has been some discussion on another thread about the dreaded swimming pool route on the neck pickup of Rickenbacker 4001 and 4003 basses. It has been said that the newer 4003s have a shallower route.

Here are some photos of mine, purchased new this January:

IMG_0161.JPG
IMG_0162.JPG
IMG_0163.JPG
IMG_0164.JPG


This would be the shallower route, wouldn't it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod
#4
AnalogKid4003 said:
Here's my '77 4001 pickup route I assume it's stock .View attachment 632827View attachment 632828
.43 deep at the neck side.

Did rickenbacker not own routers back in the 70's? Lol
Click to expand...

That rout is definitely not stock.
Someone widened it quite a bit toward the bridge pickup side.
It should end at the edge of the very last Forstner cut.

I have a '77 as well as an '81 and the neck rout doesn't look anything like that.
The Forstner bit cuts for the wiring channel is stock however.
 
Last edited:
#6
That route looks a whole lot better on the 4003s! Looks like maybe 1/2" deep for the whole thing? Most luthiers who re-cut these to solve neck bend do a stepped route with about 3/8" deep main route, and around 1/2" under the pole pieces, which is all you need. Only took them 40 years to figure this out, but better late than never! From what I've read, "negative neck angle" was a rare problem on four strings, but present to a greater or lesser extent on virtually all the 5-strings. Here's a photo of my Ric clone build in progress showing the various pup and bridge routes relative to the overall 1-1/4" neck beam thickness. It should be obvious why leaving only a 1/2" thick "bridge" of wood under the neck pup would be a bad idea this close to the neck/body joint. This was made worse on the versions with only 1/2" between the end of fingerboard and pup route. They increased that spacing to 1", presumably to allow more clearance for truss rod removal, but it had the benefit of adding a little more wood between FB and pup route. The bridge pup needs a full 7/8" deep route to allow room for the pup base and adjustment screws, so the neck-through strength is mostly negated beyond that point. You can see how I'm adding dowels to further strengthen the body wing/neck beam joints. I don't expect to see any "negative neck angle" on this one. Despite claims to the contrary by certain TB'ers, this problem is well known on RRF (that hotbed of Ric-Haters), and discussed in numerous threads. Filling in the "swimming pool" is pretty much standard practice on full restorations.
IMG_2455_zpsa9liaml6.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: timplog
#7
Mellowinman
Thanks for starting this thread. I apologize to TB at large for hijacking ATB's thread with an exchange that got personal, just sick of anyone who points out QC or design problems with Ric basses being labeled a "Ric-Hater". Thank god for the "ignore" button, it decreases online stress like magic. I'm sure some people have me on their ignore list as well, so it's all good. If enough people point out where things can be improved on such an iconic and well-loved instrument, maybe Ric will take notice. It looks like that hope is justified on the 4003s.
 
#8
Gilmourisgod said:
....... If enough people point out where things can be improved on such an iconic and well-loved instrument, maybe Ric will take notice. It looks like that hope is justified on the 4003s.
Click to expand...

I think the trick is to convince them it's their idea and it didn't originate outside 'the family'.
A very sensitive bunch for some reason, even if one is only trying to help, not criticize.
 
#10
Yeah, that 4001 is definitely not stock. In fact, I think those two circles you can just see in the picture, on the bottom of the pocket, mark the original corners. That bottom edge looks like somebody's pet squirrel gnawed it out for him; I've done better work with a pocket knife...:)
 
#11
GIBrat51 said:
Yeah, that 4001 is definitely not stock. In fact, I think those two circles you can just see in the picture, on the bottom of the pocket, mark the original corners. That bottom edge looks like somebody's pet squirrel gnawed it out for him; I've done better work with a pocket knife...:)
Click to expand...

I assumed it was original because I thought this refinished mapleglow was originally jetglow due to the black paint in the route, but now that you point that out it makes sense it was modified.

I picked this up for $400 with original beat up case. I don't know how many pick guards this has had on it, but there's more holes than ever seen on a Ric body. Lol.
It came with this wonky homemade wood PG.

I think I'm going to do a relic jetglo ala Geddy Lee with badass bridge. It's just too ugly sanded down and clear coated. My 82 jetglo 4003 is unbound and I've always wanted a jetglo 70's 4001.
Anybody chime in how to install a badass on a Ric using a pickguard surround?
 
#12
I think that's always a custom job. I actually bought a badass for my old 79' Jetglo, never got around to installing it. I've seen it done by cutting out a piece of white plastic to match the original bridge footprint to hide the screwholes and any paint damaged by the old bridge. I wonder if Pickguardian makes a badass conversion surround? There are a few well-done examples here, but none of them look as good as the Hipshot replacement bridge. If you want a better functioning bridge that looks great, the Hipshot is the best option IMO.
Badass II for a Rickenbacker 4003? | TalkBass.com

Replacement bridges for Rickenbacker 4003 and a Kramer DMZ 4000 | TalkBass.com
 
Last edited:
#13
Gilmourisgod said:
I just realized Mellowinman's bass is a 4003, not 4003s, so they must have fixed this for the whole new production line, that's good news. Now if they could just re-introduce a checker binding model with crushed-pearl inlays.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised when I took that pickguard off. This has been my dream bass, in every single way. I am not some fanboy who says every Ric is perfect; but I am the happy owner of one that certainly is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gilmourisgod
#17
Gilmourisgod said:
Definitely shielding mine, did it make any noticeable improvement in hum? I like that conductive foil because you can solder to it. Did you cover the back of the PG too.?
Click to expand...

I didn't notice any improvement. Though I never noticed any hum either, even before shielding. Even with the three 4001's I had during the 70's. I never noticed any hum.
 
#18
I must have had a bad one, my 79 4001 hummed badly. It could have been a bad ground, but I knew nothing about electronics at the time. Do you make your own wiring harnesses now? I can solder, but don't really understand what's going on electronically. Trying to decide if I should buy the parts and DIY or suck it up and buy a pre-wired rick harness.
 
#19
For the two 4003's I now have, I just left the existing wiring harness in. I saw no reason to change them out. For new builds, I make my own harnesses. I've developed reasonable soldering skills over the years, though I still don't see why people ground everything to the pot housings. I have to wonder why would one want to heat up the housing enough to melt solder - how does that not effect the windings inside the pot? If one shields the area where the pots mount to, and ground that, then the posts are grounded.

I'm pretty good with simple analog electronics. It's like following a map. Once you understand what each component does, caps, pots, resistors, etc. I never got the hang of digital. Too much like math.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back