Comment on se-2021-17

Using an experimental approach based on analogue modelling, the manuscript entitled “Contribution of gravity gliding in salt-bearing rift basins – A new experimental setup for simulating salt tectonics under the influence of sub-salt extension and tilting” by Warsitzka and co-authors present a new experimental apparatus to investigate how basin extension and tilting of the flanks affect influence suprasalt deformation. A systematic experimental program consisting of 7 experiments clearly illustrates this interaction. Experimental results have been analysed with digital image correlation techniques.

program consisting of 7 experiments clearly illustrates this interaction. Experimental results have been analysed with digital image correlation techniques.
The manuscript is well written and figures perfectly support the explanations of the different manuscript sections. I appreciate the detailed and justified scaling description. I would have preferred an illustration of the kinematic evolution of some of the experiments with polymer from overhead pictures or more sections in the results section comparing different experiments. May be figures like 11 or 13 in the experimental results section will help the reader more than start directly with DIC figures. The results are well explained, although I suggest to use only the model number instead of the model name (see specific comments). The apparatus limitations are also described in the manuscript. The experimental results are finally compared with the structural styles of several natural analogues.
I consider the manuscript fits really well in Solid Earth and should be accepted with minor revisions. Please, find below some comments, suggestions and questions.   (d) change "rollovers" by rollers. If not, please be consistent with the style used in Fig. 1d (roll-overs).
(e) "Conceptual sketch" of the experimental setup applied in "this" study.

Section 2: Geological prototype and experimental setup.
There are some inconsistencies between the values indicated in the manuscript and those in Table 1. Please check and modify if necessary.
In Table 1 Is correct the value of 60000 km for the width of the flanks in Table 1? Please check it.
Please check "Parentis Trough" for "Parentis Basin" in Table 1. Table 1: for Central Graben, please use also capital letters for "Central" and "South".

Section 3: Method
Line 90: How was controlled the vertical movement of the central graben structure? Gravitationally as bendable plates were pushed or with a motor? Please explain it.
Line 96: According to the Figure 2, the y-axis correspond to the width of the apparatus and z-axis to the depth. Please, check the text and modify. In this line you also indicate the width of the experimental apparatus is 60 cm, but the number that appears in figure  2b is 50 cm. I understand this last value refers to the effective width of the model without the width of the two lateral sand walls. This is not clear in the text and should be better explained.
Lines 109 to 111: Could you explain a little more the proportions of quartz sand and silicate cenospheres mixtures? Which were these mixtures? Why did you use different mixtures and not the same? Please explain it.

Section 3.5: Experimental procedure
The number and/or the name of the experiment are used indistinctively both in the manuscript and in table 3. Personally, I think the name of the experiment is something that as a modeler we use to organize our experimental program. Nevertheless, I suggest to use just the number of experiments in manuscripts because it greatly simplifies reading and understanding of the article. Line 266: "sedimentation" instead "accumulation".
Line 269: "syn-kinematic sand is sieved on the model surface". Did you label the sand after sieving? How? I noticed a positive surface elevation over the basin in Fig. 9 a and b. Is this because the surface of the experiments was not levelled after the sedimentation of each syn-kinematic layer?

Section 4: Results
Line 288: movement of the cover layer… Please, remove layer. Not necessary here.   Line 397: A nice field example that maybe you can include in the application to nature and outlook section is the Cotiella Basin in the Pyrenees. This is an outstanding and incredible outcrop example of the structures developed in the outer rift basin during the post-rift stage. It might be interesting to take a look to the works of Lopez-Mir and coauthors.