Ric 5 - Looked for a long time, finally found one

[atb]

So Mark soldiered on and started on the next mod, setting up for the "minimum neck pick up route".

The inward tension of the strings pulls the head stock and bridge toward each other. The tail piece lift that my bass has is a result of that. The neck gets affected as well, resulting in a forward bow that no amount of truss rod adjument will fix. Over time, this can cause the neck to be pulled forward and separate from the body wings. The theory is that this is due in part to the location of the massive neck pick up route, which is bolstered on either side by the body wings, creating a weak point at the truss rod pocket. The neck (which is actually the center section of the body at this point) is very thin here, and yet has to deal with trying to keep the bass from folding in half. Look at how little wood there is at this location:

Step one is to remove the finish in the truss rod pocket, and glue in these three maple blocks. The idea is to provide as much support for the neck as possible.

The "step" in the fore and aft section of the pick up cavity or routed out, leaving a clean and square opening.

A clean block of solid maple is then epoxied in. The epoxy is stronger than the wood itself, and now the neck has the maximum support possible. This will be allowed to set up overnight, and then a less invasive route for the toaster can be done.

 

[JMacBass65]

I keep seeing things Rick should be doing.........

 

[atb]

Just want to make sure that I'm not coming across as a chicken little here.

Definitely not trying to say that every Rick is a jack knife in the making, without question a lot of Rics, stock and converted fivers, are out there are playing fine.

But this one was already showing signs of stress and it's only a '91. I'm going to own it forever so maintaining originality is not an issue for me. Having a solid, playable 5 string is my goal here. This is one way to get there.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

That neck pup reinforcement is pretty much mandatory for five strings from what I've seen. The pup route only needs to be around 1/2" deep for the body of the pickup, with a 3/8" or so smaller route centered under the polepieces. Here's
what I'm doing on my build, your Luthier will probably do something similar:

Your bass is going to be killer when it's finished!

 

[Ric5]

Hmmm....OK. I always thought you did more than that, because it just seemed to look like a cleaner solution. Maybe it's the saddles/spacing that do it.

I do more than that when I convert a 4 string 4003 into a 5 string 4003. But the 4003s5 basses that I have owned I do a couple of simple mods to make it better, 1 - extra screws, and 2 new saddles for wider string spacing. Basically things that should have been done at the factory.

Your solution preserves the classic look of the old Ric tailpiece. But for me the 2 extra screws is the easy solution.

 

[Ric5]

That neck pup reinforcement is pretty much mandatory for five strings from what I've seen. The pup route only needs to be around 1/2" deep for the body of the pickup, with a 3/8" or so smaller route centered under the polepieces. Here's
what I'm doing on my build, your Luthier will probably do something similar:

Your bass is going to be killer when it's finished!

My experience is that the bigger hole for the neck pickup is no problem at all

 

[Gilmourisgod]

My experience is that the bigger hole for the neck pickup is no problem at all

Well, It's a common enough problem that Ric has changed to a shallower neck pup route on the 4003s, and there are examples all over the net of people fixing this problem as part of restorations. Any luthier can tell you that having only 1/2" of wood at the point of maximum torque in the neck beam is effectively negating the structural advantage of a neck-through design, it's acting more like a set neck, where you are counting on the glue to hold things together. If you've had no trouble on your 5 string conversions you are in luck. I'm adding dowels between body wings and neck beam around the neck pup route to beef it up in addition to the shallower pup route. Ric used nails as locating pins during glue-up, but added no other reinforcement. These restoration photos on RRF illustrate the potential problems pretty clearly:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Coolhandjjl]

Nice solution. You might as well grind out the string holding section on the original tailpiece to gain better access to your new piece when re-stringing.

 

[JMacBass65]

I do more than that when I convert a 4 string 4003 into a 5 string 4003.

Ah....that must be what I was thinking of.

 

[Ric5]

Well, It's a common enough problem that Ric has changed to a shallower neck pup route on the 4003s, and there are examples all over the net of people fixing this problem as part of restorations. Any luthier can tell you that having only 1/2" of wood at the point of maximum torque in the neck beam is effectively negating the structural advantage of a neck-through design, it's acting more like a set neck, where you are counting on the glue to hold things together. If you've had no trouble on your 5 string conversions you are in luck. I'm adding dowels between body wings and neck beam around the neck pup route to beef it up in addition to the shallower pup route. Ric used nails as locating pins during glue-up, but added no other reinforcement. These restoration photos on RRF illustrate the potential problems pretty clearly:
Invalid Link Removed

I have owned over 20 different Ricks and worked on dozens more ... not even a slight problem on any of those Ricks. I don't think it was luck. I could convert 100 more Ricks and none of them would have a problem. I think this is a case where someone took off the pickguard and it "looked" wrong to them so they figured it must be a problem. The truth is a standard 4003 bass from 1986 to present has a neck that is designed to at least 150% of the strees that an average set of 4 strings would put on that neck. And the old 4001 basses from 1973 to 1984 are also quite strong. The only ones with weak necks are the 1972 and earlier ones before the skunk stripe, and even with those the weakness was not the neck pickup route, it was the thinner 60s necks.

 

[JMacBass65]

The truth is a standard 4003 bass from 1986 to present has a neck that is designed to at least 150% of the strees that an average set of 4 strings would put on that neck. And the old 4001 basses from 1973 to 1984 are also quite strong. The only ones with weak necks are the 1972 and earlier ones before the skunk stripe, and even with those the weakness was not the neck pickup route, it was the thinner 60s necks.

Not that I am worried, as my 4003 has had RS66s on it since at least 91 or so when I got it, with no issues, but there is a date gap in your reply. How about '85 4003s??

 

[atb]

So here's the before and after on the route for the Toaster. You can see that the new routing pocket doesn't go any deeper than the depth of the truss rods, compared to the swimming pool well of the original. Still not sure why they had such a large route for this pick up from the factory.

Curious to see if/how this mod affects tone on this Ricky. I had a'74 4001 (which was stolen) that had an even bigger route than this one, and it was the loudest bass when playing unplugged that I've ever owned. I think it must have been the cavernous pick up cavity that made it an almost semi-hollow body.

Looking forward to posting sound samples after its put back together and we can see if we still have an authentic sounding Rick.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I have owned over 20 different Ricks and worked on dozens more ... not even a slight problem on any of those Ricks. I don't think it was luck. I could convert 100 more Ricks and none of them would have a problem. I think this is a case where someone took off the pickguard and it "looked" wrong to them so they figured it must be a problem. The truth is a standard 4003 bass from 1986 to present has a neck that is designed to at least 150% of the strees that an average set of 4 strings would put on that neck. And the old 4001 basses from 1973 to 1984 are also quite strong. The only ones with weak necks are the 1972 and earlier ones before the skunk stripe, and even with those the weakness was not the neck pickup route, it was the thinner 60s necks.

That would imply that the OP's Luthier, and lots of other Luthiers who have fixed "negative neck angle" (the term used to describe this well-known condition on RRF, not a known haven of "Ric-Hater Propagandists") are simply ripping off their clients by doing unnecessary repairs? I know from previous posts that you don't like to read about problems with Ric basses, but you are really out on a limb here. It's a well known design problem with incontrovertible photographic and anecdotal evidence from numerous sources, a few of which have been linked to here. This is fact, not opinion, further confirmed by the additional fact that Ric has changed the pup route for the 4003s. If this wasn't a problem they would bother to change it because...? As I said, if you've had no problems with "negative neck angle" on original manufacture 5 string Rics, more power and luck to you, the OP clearly has. If he believes, as you assert, that his luthier is just misguided because the huge pup route "looks wrong", he should ask for a refund at once.

 

[kcole4001]

...... I know from previous posts that you don't like to read about problems with Ric basses.................

I gotta say you have the wrong guy there.
Jeff has no problem criticizing RIC or their product if there is a valid flaw or problem.
He got booted from the RRF for just that.

Also he's owned, played, and worked on a LOT of Rick basses.

 

[Gilmourisgod]

I gotta say you have the wrong guy there.
Jeff has no problem criticizing RIC or their product if there is a valid flaw or problem.
He got booted from the RRF for just that.

Also he's owned, played, and worked on a LOT of Rick basses.

I think he lost me when he referred to a number of fellow TB'ers who pointed out crooked pickups and other QC problems (with photographic evidence) as "Ric-Hater Propagandists", kind of frosted my cake at the time, but now I think it would make a great T-Shirt logo, all the more so since I LOVE Rics. People can read his posts, and mine, on other Ric related threads and draw their own conclusions.

ATB,
Sorry to hijack your thread, I'm out, best of luck with your restoration, I envy you owning this!

 

[atb]

Yes, can you folks agree to disagree on this one? Or at least take it to another thread?

I want to reiterate that the purpose of this thread isn't to make a statement about the general condition of all Rickenbacker basses. I've acknowledged that there are Ricks out there with no issues. My '74 4001 had no issues and had Rotos on it for the 25 years I owned it. However, this 4003s5 did have issues.

The luthier doing the work was given the following parameters:

1) It needs to "look" stock when its done.
2) I want to be able to access both vintage and non-vintage tones.
3) It needs to be able to handle rotosound strings.

I don't see anything that's being done to this bass that doesn't accomplish those ends.

Are there other ways to address these issues? No doubt about it. But I have asked this luthier to use his discretion. We've known each other for over 30 years, and he has worked on many basses for me, and in fact built the custom five string in my avatar. He knows how I like things done. He may not have chosen the same fixes if someone else brought in the same bass, but he knows that these are the kind of mods that I would be looking for.

So, with this thread I'm looking to just share information, not preaching that all 4001 / 4003 owners are doomed.

You guys can do what you want with the information. Hopefully you won't ever have any issues, but if you do, maybe this thread may help you with your own solution.

 

[atb]

Perhaps the uneven string-to-string spacing could be fixed as well. The strings also do not line up over the pole pieces.

Sorry 12bass, missed your post. The angle of the photo I posted isn’t very good, and makes the strings appear off center on the bridge pick up. They actually lined up pretty well. I can’t speak to the toaster, as I don’t know what “lined up” looks like on that one. It’s a six pole piece pick up, so I don’t really know how the math works on that.

The string alignment is an interesting issue. I didn’t really notice it until I read your post and took another look at the pic of the bass. I think because the neck is so narrow, that if the spacing between the centerline of the strings is the same, then the B, E, and A will feel even more crowded because of their larger diameter. If you try to create equal space inbetween the strings, then the strings centers will have to be off-center. Don’t know how that will get resolved, I'll leave that in the hands of the professional.

Nice solution. You might as well grind out the string holding section on the original tailpiece to gain better access to your new piece when re-stringing.

I talked to Mark about that, and he recommends to keep the bridge intact. Its interesting, but it seems that the wood body can modded and its not such a huge deal, but preserving the hardware is a big deal. Maybe I should glue some ball ends in the original holes so no one will be able to tell there’s a separate tail piece underneath. Ha ha.

 

[mellowinman]

Yes, can you folks agree to disagree on this one? Or at least take it to another thread?

Please take it to this thread:

Of Rickenbackers and Swimming Pools | TalkBass.com

 

[Ric5]

That would imply that the OP's Luthier, and lots of other Luthiers who have fixed "negative neck angle" (the term used to describe this well-known condition on RRF, not a known haven of "Ric-Hater Propagandists") are simply ripping off their clients by doing unnecessary repairs? I know from previous posts that you don't like to read about problems with Ric basses, but you are really out on a limb here. It's a well known design problem with incontrovertible photographic and anecdotal evidence from numerous sources, a few of which have been linked to here. This is fact, not opinion, further confirmed by the additional fact that Ric has changed the pup route for the 4003s. If this wasn't a problem they would bother to change it because...? As I said, if you've had no problems with "negative neck angle" on original manufacture 5 string Rics, more power and luck to you, the OP clearly has. If he believes, as you assert, that his luthier is just misguided because the huge pup route "looks wrong", he should ask for a refund at once.

I have never seen a single instance of this in a bass that I have personally seen ...

 

[Ric5]

If someone wants to reinforce a Rick bass by adding wood to the neck pickup area then it will certainly not hurt the bass in any way. I would put my time and energy into other areas the 4003 can be improved.