In that thread it was surmised that Tesla likely had to forego folding seats based on the need for seat belts to be integrated in to the seat structure, rather than the vehicle frame (as a result of the falcon wing doors). Ostensibly ,the forces in a collision would be too great for a folding mechanism to withstand, allowing the seat back to flop forward with the forces of an occupant slamming against the shoulder belt. Admittedly, there is a lot of force on the base of a seat back with an adult occupant being slammed forward at several G's in an impact. Assuming the top belt attachment point on the seat back is ~30" from the seat hinge, that's quite a lever acting on that mechanism. However, that same belt attachment point is likely ~45" from the seat pedestal base... which does tilt. That's an even longer lever, introducing greater forces acting on that floor articulation point. Now certainly, there are packaging considerations, in that designing a mechanism to fit within the area where the seat cushion meets that back may be the significant challenge. But if they were able to design an articulating pedestal base to not fail with the weight of a 250 lb man during a 50MPH frontal impact.... Thoughts on the engineering or tradeoffs involved? I tend to think the pedestal power tilting mechanism may be a beefy screw-drive on a substantial pivot anchored directly to a chassis cross member. Would a lever-actuated locking mechanism for the seat back have simply been to large to incorporate in to the seats comfortably?