I don’t know about the “right” part - but they did do it differently.
While their pan/tilt uses a turntable assembly similar to the structure of the Lynx molded shoulder base, to provide more support to the bits being panned and tilted than just a servo shaft will allow, I suspect that it is necessary to provide the extra support, because the aluminum structure and mounting plate hang so far out over the edge. The design looks like it could be fairly easily duplicated in Lynxmotion SES parts, using a BR-KT base rotate kit and some brackets, but you’ll still be front-loading the assembly, and forcing the mechanism to work to keep your sensors pointing anywhere other than at the ground.
Both their design and the Lynx pan-tilt kit on the “assemblies” page do this, placing the mounting plate well away from the axis of rotation. Both of these assemblies may be fine for a lightweight sensor package where the structure and sensors don’t drag the servo down too much, but without counterbalancing or load-sharing springs, the tendency will always be there for the nose to dip downwards and resist pointing up. A “quick and dirty” solution is to rotate the terminal bracket from a horizontal position, with the mounting plate on a vertical plane, to a verical one, with the mounting plate horizontal. This would, in effect, “balance” the sensor payload on top of it, and lessen the down-tilting tendency. Many (most?) common robotic sensors are designed for vertical mounting from the rear, rather than horizontal mounting from the bottom though, so for a lot of things, like sonar sensors, the Sharp rangers, etc., you’d need to work out a 90-degree bracket of some sort. It would also tend to add to the height above the ground, which is where most of the obstacles you’re trying to detect live. The difference may only be an inch or two, but depending on your sensor and the mounting geometry, it may make the difference between seeing or not seeing something, significantly affect the detection range, or prevent it from seeing an area immediately in front of the robot, where you’re often trying to detect things in the first place.
This whole front-to-back pan/tilt thing was discussed a while back when someone was looking at mounting a pellet gun on a turret. With a heavy load mounted to the front of a pan/tilt, the servos will always be working against gravity, and it will quickly “wilt” when power is removed. If a system is devised where the axis of rotation passes through or near the CG of the gun/camera/sensor-suite/badger/whatever, it will minimize the amount of work the servos must do, and minimize the amount of power required to move them. It also has the upshot of reducing wear and tear on the mechanics and electronics of the pan/tilt servos.
Again, for small, lightweight things, the load won’t be very high even if they’re hanging out there on a big aluminum bracket, but everything adds up. I suspect that all of those slots are there on the crustcrawler design not just to allow for flexible mounting, but also for weight-reduction purposes.
I am not intending to prop or bash anyone’s product here - just making a few observations.