Explanation please for mount design

I'm working on the MX's rear suspension at the moment. I'm not positive why CR designed the upper coil mount the way they did (bolted on) and the extra hole in the upper control arm mounts. I can guess, but I always learn more when I ask.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ok, I'll try to tackle this, but as I've said before, I don't have an MX.

The spring mounts MOST LIKELY bolt on because the tabs on the chassis were there already.  My 5000 has those same frame tabs and they are used for roll bar mounting.  That meant the Classic only had to add the mounts for the suspension links to the MX frame.  Fewer parts and changes to make.  Just my opinion.

As to the extra holes.  They appear to be there so that you can lower the upper links in the front.  This would increase anti-squat and theoretically increase traction.  That is just my first take, although it looks like they would be a little tight to the bottom of the bracket.  Pictures can be difficult to judge.  At any rate, I probably wouldn't lower the front of the links unless I had adjustable upper links.  Lowering the front mounting point will change the pinion angle by some amount and adjustable links will allow you to compensate.

Now, it is entirely possible that I'm completely wrong.  Again, this is just my opinion.

Thank you. Makes sense. Since the coil top mount is bolted on it makes it much easier to remove if one is going with a coil over suspension bolted to the shock mounts. That's probably what I’ll do - remove them.
The extra holes in the upper control arm mounts make sense for your explanation.
Thank you

It dawned on me a possible reason for the two vertically spaced holes in the upper shock mount. It's possible that in order to obtain the sweet spot of around 14” we have two options in using either hole which are spaced about an inch apart?