Some Ric Porn for you: 4003S/5 and 4003S/8

[Highlander]

There's got to be a "legal" issue here...? (genuine - not joking - in the UK we call it "not of merchantable quality")

[dminer]

Uwe, I have read on other forums of at least a few other people with 4003s8's with the exact same problem. But, there are also many owners with no issues at all.    
  Since my 87 was in almost mint condition when I got it in or around 2001, (and I got it from a local, small, vintage music store), there is the possibility that it was sent back to rick by the original owner and they did the mods. Or, maybe it didn't develope the bow until after the warrenty had expired.
   I asked John Hall once about the imbedded bridge assembly and he replied that that did not sound like anything that they would have done at the factory. But, I recently read somewhere that some of the model 4008's were shipped from the factory with the lowered (imbedded) bridge assembly. I have never seen a close up picture of one, and I can't remember where I read that...maybe the rick forum. Whomever did the bridge rout on my bass did a very clean job and if you didn't look closely you'd never know that it's not stock.
  I agree that rick certainly should have done more research before sending these out...perhaps a wider/thicker neck, larger rods, graphite re-inforcement and an 8 saddle bridge would not have been too terribly hard to implement.
  I am really happy with the results and even though I play in a blues band these days I still think I'll take it to a rehersal just to hear it with a full band.
The last time I played it live was with an Americana/rock band and we had my rick 4003s8, a Burns double 6 electric guitar, an electrified/acoustic slide mandoline, and a jerry jones electric sitar! There were a LOT of strings on stage that night!!! cheers, David

[uwe]

I assume that the quality of the maple used in various eras might also have something to do with it.  My luthier said: "They didn't exactly use a great piece of wood."

[ilan]

I think that part of the problem lies in that the S/5 and S/8 were essentially converted 4-stringers, with neck construction that was designed to handle the pull of four strings.

[Dave W]

I don't think they ever used anything other than hard maple for necks. A given piece of hard maple may turn out to be a lot less stiff than average, but that wouldn't account for the problem unless yours were the only one.

I agree with Ilan, these just weren't engineered for the pull of 8 strings.

[uwe]

Of course its foremost the pull - the pull of an eight string is simply brutal. On a four string the D has the highest pull, but on an eight string the octave E alone has more pull than a regular D because it is basically a D string two steps up. And that is in addition to the D string and its octave and so forth ...

What I'm saying, some 8 string Rics seem to hold up, others don't. With everything else assumed equal, I think the stiffness of the individual maple used could be a decisive element whether the rods can still barely withstand the pull or give up.

As I've mentioned before, my Gibson LP 8 string is a hastily modded 4 string, but the (regular) neck holds up perfectly and looks like it could actually withstand the pull of another 4, i.e. 12 strings.

With all that said, it's a lovely bass when it actually works! Most 8 strings sound a little rash and offensive, not the Ric.

[ilan]

If I had an S/8 I'd probably try to tune it a whole step down to Dd-Gg-Cc-Ff for less tension. Then maybe capo at the 2nd fret to get open Ee-Aa-Dd-Gg strings. Or not. Worth a try.

[uwe]

I've done that out of desperation. The capo'd stuff sounded terrible and I don't have much use for a D tuning. In any case, it seems to hold up fine now though you never know what that long cold dry winter will do to it. Rics suffer in European winter quite a bit - the Starfighter of basses, made in California for use in California only!