Super Jet Stiff Motor Mounts = Lower N/S ?

[DAG]

Are you guys that are switching to the RHAAS mounts, or any AM mount that is stiff, find yourself lowering the N/S due to the added vibration? For example you can keep 20psi popoff using a 2.0, 2.3, or 2.5 just by switching / stretching springs. My thought process here is to keep the same popoff value but reduce the risk of loading up due to leaking/vibrating n/s by decreasing the diameter of the N/S. Or I could keep the same N/S and increase the spring pressure but that's surly to make my throttle response go to hell.

 

[MADMAT]

I saw no diff in the way my ski ran throughout several diff types of mounts....including the 2 hours I had on the rhass before they fell apart.

I felt the extra vibration for sure....but no change in carbs at all...zero...zilch...

 

[WFO Speedracer]

Vibration usually aids in the sealing of needle and seats

 

[naticen]

Mikuni recommends the smallest seat you can you can use anyways, but I noticed no difference from changing to those motor mounts.

 

[sjetrider]

I noticed a difference BIG TIME once the mounts broke in they shake rattle and roll. Had to increase my pop off considerably to keep it from being dirty on bottom all the time from the shaking. When they were stiff they were fine its when they broke in that the shaking of the motor on low end was killing my bottom end punch.
I have only noticed it on the billet motors so far though?

 

[DAG]

good feedback

 

[gto0209]

no issues here with a season on my rhaas mounts

 

[Proformance1]

I had this discussion with carb designer last year when i was havin a bunch of different spark and fuel issues. He told me i was thinking into it too much and the higher durometer rubber or urethane would not affect my pop off or N/S settings. Im still not sure. I raised my pop off up and it was better to me. I changed mine from 22 to 26 psi. But i was running air boxes so higher pop off was better for me and did not hurt performance off idle