Yep, as Richard says, and I too have said in a previous thread the whole shock mount design is a total weekend bodge so that Peter Morgan could install shocks in order to pacify the masses who just couldn't get the fact that at that time the sliding pillar suspension was designed to counteract and damp bounce and didn't in fact require them. A rudimentary change to the top mount was quickly made and a lower mount drilled and mounted into the hub assembly to carry a shock absorber. Now we have all sorts of theories around setting up adjustable shock absorbers which have evolved from a racing scenario, fine tuning cars which have extremely advanced suspension systems! The Morgan classic doesn't! It's range of travel is probably under 37mm and if the main spring rating is correct what the hell are you damping? I can only think of one use for a damper here and that is to help the wheel from accelerating into a pot hole but when you see how little resistance the shocks have fitted on a classic, it wouldn't/couldn't even do that.
It is purely a shockingly awful add-on design that is the causal fault of distortion and damage to either the top mount or shock absorber itself.
Much like the classic rear modification when the hoop and telescopic shocks were installed. This too doesn't allow for the rotational forces which occur at the top mount point on the hoop. stuffing the rubber mounting bushes at best and even destroying the mounting sites at either hub or hoop. Probably there was a cost saving over the lever arm system and or ease of procurement. I really can't see any design or use regulations having been applied here!
A rubber mount such as in a shock absorber has a shoulder or sleeve fitted in order for it to allow the fixings to be secured correctly and the rubber bushes allow for movement within the range required. No wonder nuts are coming undone! perhaps we aren't using the correct torque settings for rubber!
