Discussion:
Let's have out with it - Ferrari strategy calls (spoiler)
(too old to reply)
Sir Tim
2017-05-28 16:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Here's how I think it went in - before the race and during
1) Vettel had had better long run pace in FP.
2) Raikkonen was leading the race and got priority
3) Vettel stayed out and had very good pace
4) Vettel got lucky when Sauber pulled in Ericsson just as Vettel was
going to come up on his rear - this creates some open air for Vettel to
run in
5) Vettel gets in the fast laps and makes just enough of a gap to pit
and come out in front.
I don't think anything was planned ahead of time. It is possible that
Ferrari saw Vettel's pace and decided to give him a chance to make the
overcut work. They couldn't know that the Sauber would pit - indeed
initially it looked like Vettel was going to run into traffic and
Raikkonen would thus end up in front on the row.
Whatever, Vettel had to make it work. And he did. He was faster.
Interestingly, and again Ferrari could not have known this in real
time, the undercut didn't work in this race, and the overcut worked
nearly every time.
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does. Several of
us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would happen and it did.

The Ferrari decision may or may not be justified but it's clear that
Kimi is going to have to resign himself to the fact that he is No.2.
--
Sir Tim

“Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional”
Bobster
2017-05-28 17:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I thought Brundle got clever after the event. James Allen thinks it was simply that Vettel was faster. If they gave him the chance, it was that: a chance. He had to make it work
geoff
2017-05-28 20:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
I thought Brundle got clever after the event. James Allen thinks it was simply that Vettel was faster. If they gave him the chance, it was that: a chance. He had to make it work
And those two laps - he certainly did.

geoff
Bigbird
2017-05-28 18:27:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Here's how I think it went in - before the race and during
1) Vettel had had better long run pace in FP.
2) Raikkonen was leading the race and got priority
3) Vettel stayed out and had very good pace
4) Vettel got lucky when Sauber pulled in Ericsson just as Vettel
was going to come up on his rear - this creates some open air for
Vettel to run in 5) Vettel gets in the fast laps and makes just
enough of a gap to pit and come out in front.
I don't think anything was planned ahead of time. It is possible
that Ferrari saw Vettel's pace and decided to give him a chance to
make the overcut work. They couldn't know that the Sauber would pit
- indeed initially it looked like Vettel was going to run into
traffic and Raikkonen would thus end up in front on the row.
Whatever, Vettel had to make it work. And he did. He was faster.
Interestingly, and again Ferrari could not have known this in real
time, the undercut didn't work in this race, and the overcut worked
nearly every time.
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does. Several
of us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would happen and it
did.
The Ferrari decision may or may not be justified but it's clear that
Kimi is going to have to resign himself to the fact that he is No.2.
What I saw was a complaining Kimi doing 1:17's just before his stop and
Vettel immediately going half a second faster then faster still
eventually doing a 1:15.2. He was half a seond quicker on his old tyres
nearly every lap.

It seemed to me that Kimi called for the stop and Vettel took full
advantage of his better pace on old tyres.

I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?

I wasn't paying enough attention to be sure of anything but the above
reflects my impression of what occured.

(Talking of impressions; you do a pretty good Shaun ;) )

ps if it's any consolation I do remember when Kimi was the best thing
since sliced bread. Memory serves better than records.
Sir Tim
2017-05-28 22:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Sir Tim
Here's how I think it went in - before the race and during
1) Vettel had had better long run pace in FP.
2) Raikkonen was leading the race and got priority
3) Vettel stayed out and had very good pace
4) Vettel got lucky when Sauber pulled in Ericsson just as Vettel
was going to come up on his rear - this creates some open air for
Vettel to run in 5) Vettel gets in the fast laps and makes just
enough of a gap to pit and come out in front.
I don't think anything was planned ahead of time. It is possible
that Ferrari saw Vettel's pace and decided to give him a chance to
make the overcut work. They couldn't know that the Sauber would pit
- indeed initially it looked like Vettel was going to run into
traffic and Raikkonen would thus end up in front on the row.
Whatever, Vettel had to make it work. And he did. He was faster.
Interestingly, and again Ferrari could not have known this in real
time, the undercut didn't work in this race, and the overcut worked
nearly every time.
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does. Several
of us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would happen and it
did.
The Ferrari decision may or may not be justified but it's clear that
Kimi is going to have to resign himself to the fact that he is No.2.
What I saw was a complaining Kimi doing 1:17's just before his stop and
Vettel immediately going half a second faster then faster still
eventually doing a 1:15.2. He was half a second quicker on his old tyres
nearly every lap.
Yes, which is a odd considering he had been following Kimi since the start,
which usually produces greater tyre wear doesn't it? Not suggesting any
sort of conspiracy, just wondering why. More sympathetic driving by Seb
maybe.
Post by Bigbird
It seemed to me that Kimi called for the stop and Vettel took full
advantage of his better pace on old tyres.
I thought it was the pit that called Kimi in. He certainly questioned his
team's strategy after the race.
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
Difficult to answer a hypothetical question.
Post by Bigbird
I wasn't paying enough attention to be sure of anything but the above
reflects my impression of what occured.
And what you say is entirely reasonable. I just find it hard to believe it
a coincidence when what so many people predicted, i.e. That Ferrari would
find a way of achieving the win for the WDC leader, actually happened. I
didn't watch the preamble on Sky but I gather that both Brundle and di
Resta bet that Ferrari would find a way of dong so (a curry meal wasn't
it?).
Post by Bigbird
(Talking of impressions; you do a pretty good Shaun ;) )
Eh? OK I don't like Seb - mainly because of his inane whooping over the RT
when he wins - but, unlike Shaun, I don't let this mild dislike of him as
an individual blind me to the fact that he is one of the 2 or 3 most
talented drivers of his generation.
Post by Bigbird
ps if it's any consolation I do remember when Kimi was the best thing
since sliced bread. Memory serves better than records.
Indeed. I'm not a particular Kimi fan but I don't like to see his enormous
skill and courage underrated just because he has never been much of a self
publicist and is probably now past his best.
--
Sir Tim
Bigbird
2017-05-29 10:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
Post by Sir Tim
Here's how I think it went in - before the race and during
1) Vettel had had better long run pace in FP.
2) Raikkonen was leading the race and got priority
3) Vettel stayed out and had very good pace
4) Vettel got lucky when Sauber pulled in Ericsson just as Vettel
was going to come up on his rear - this creates some open air for
Vettel to run in 5) Vettel gets in the fast laps and makes just
enough of a gap to pit and come out in front.
I don't think anything was planned ahead of time. It is possible
that Ferrari saw Vettel's pace and decided to give him a chance to
make the overcut work. They couldn't know that the Sauber would
pit >>> - indeed initially it looked like Vettel was going to run into
Post by Bigbird
Post by Sir Tim
traffic and Raikkonen would thus end up in front on the row.
Whatever, Vettel had to make it work. And he did. He was faster.
Interestingly, and again Ferrari could not have known this in real
time, the undercut didn't work in this race, and the overcut
worked >>> nearly every time.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Sir Tim
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does.
Several >> of us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would
happen and it >> did.
Post by Bigbird
Post by Sir Tim
The Ferrari decision may or may not be justified but it's clear
that >> Kimi is going to have to resign himself to the fact that he
is No.2.
Post by Bigbird
What I saw was a complaining Kimi doing 1:17's just before his stop
and Vettel immediately going half a second faster then faster still
eventually doing a 1:15.2. He was half a second quicker on his old
tyres nearly every lap.
Yes, which is a odd considering he had been following Kimi since the
start, which usually produces greater tyre wear doesn't it? Not
suggesting any sort of conspiracy, just wondering why. More
sympathetic driving by Seb maybe.
Post by Bigbird
It seemed to me that Kimi called for the stop and Vettel took full
advantage of his better pace on old tyres.
I thought it was the pit that called Kimi in. He certainly questioned
his team's strategy after the race.
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit
first, against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the
undercut... then what would you be saying?
Difficult to answer a hypothetical question.
Post by Bigbird
I wasn't paying enough attention to be sure of anything but the
above reflects my impression of what occured.
And what you say is entirely reasonable. I just find it hard to
believe it a coincidence when what so many people predicted, i.e.
That Ferrari would find a way of achieving the win for the WDC
leader, actually happened. I didn't watch the preamble on Sky but I
gather that both Brundle and di Resta bet that Ferrari would find a
way of dong so (a curry meal wasn't it?).
About as much a coincidence as someone calling it right when they call
"heads". The suggestion that a team might favour their leading driver
is almost a given. The same would have been true if it were several
other pair of teammates.

That doesn't make it true, nor have I seen that the evidence there to
suggest it is true.

What did Ferrari do different to what you expected, prior to hindsight?
Sir Tim
2017-05-29 10:38:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled. If
Ferrari had pitted Vettel then they would likely have lost second place
to Bottas or Verstappen whereas by pitting Kimi they allowed Seb to run
in clean air while he was still on super-softs and so maintain first and
second positions for the team, albeit with Seb in front.

So, Ferrari *did* elevate Vettel to first place by means of strategy, as
was widely predicted, but that strategy was entirely justified by
events. Tough on Kimi of course but Ferrari acted in the best interests
of the team.

After the pit stops Seb reinforced the decision by gaining time hand
over fist although I think this may have been partly because Kimi was by
now thoroughly demoralised and only drove as fast as he had to.
--
Sir Tim

“Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional”
Martin Harran
2017-05-29 11:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled. If
Ferrari had pitted Vettel then they would likely have lost second place
to Bottas or Verstappen whereas by pitting Kimi they allowed Seb to run
in clean air while he was still on super-softs and so maintain first and
second positions for the team, albeit with Seb in front.
So, Ferrari *did* elevate Vettel to first place by means of strategy, as
You seem to be ignoring the importance of Vettel driving much faster
than Kimi had been before the pit stop.
was widely predicted, but that strategy was entirely justified by
events. Tough on Kimi of course but Ferrari acted in the best interests
of the team.
After the pit stops Seb reinforced the decision by gaining time hand
over fist although I think this may have been partly because Kimi was by
now thoroughly demoralised and only drove as fast as he had to.
Sir Tim
2017-05-29 12:46:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Harran
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled. If
Ferrari had pitted Vettel then they would likely have lost second place
to Bottas or Verstappen whereas by pitting Kimi they allowed Seb to run
in clean air while he was still on super-softs and so maintain first and
second positions for the team, albeit with Seb in front.
So, Ferrari *did* elevate Vettel to first place by means of strategy, as
You seem to be ignoring the importance of Vettel driving much faster
than Kimi had been before the pit stop.
The crucial bit was the few laps that Seb drove on super-softs and in clean
air before his pit stop. He absolutely flew.

I think you are pushing against an open door :-)
--
Sir Tim
Bobster
2017-05-29 11:53:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled.
Well, it's easy to see that now, but in real time?

ISTR that even the experts who had predicted that Ferrari would prioritise Vettel were initially saying that he was going to run into traffic, lose time and thus not be able to catch Raikkonen.

The key moment was the Sauber being called in for it's stop. That created the clear air for Vettel to run in and bang in some fast laps.

So the interesting thing is whether or not their strategy call revolved around a judgement that the Sauber would pit.

But in the meantime the most likely scenario to me is that
a) Vettel got lucky
b) He took the luck with both hands and banged in some fast laps at the right time.
larkim
2017-05-30 09:49:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled.
Well, it's easy to see that now, but in real time?
ISTR that even the experts who had predicted that Ferrari would prioritise Vettel were initially saying that he was going to run into traffic, lose time and thus not be able to catch Raikkonen.
The key moment was the Sauber being called in for it's stop. That created the clear air for Vettel to run in and bang in some fast laps.
So the interesting thing is whether or not their strategy call revolved around a judgement that the Sauber would pit.
But in the meantime the most likely scenario to me is that
a) Vettel got lucky
b) He took the luck with both hands and banged in some fast laps at the right time.
Agree 100% with this analysis.

Seems to me that Kimi was as screwed as Verstappen was, and neither were
happy about the outcome. Though if you'd said at the outset that giving
the lead car the first pitstop was the right thing to do, I doubt too many
would have disagreed.

Kimi lost this because he wasn't fast enough when leading, Seb was quick
when Kimi pitted, and Kimi was unfortunate (or Ferrari got it a bit wrong)
with having to put in slower laps whilst following traffic compared to
Seb flying around in clean air.

Seb is good at executing an "overcut" if he gets chance to get released
into free air. Coming at it the opposite way around, if Ferrari had pitted
Seb first I think it would have been a very legitimate criticism to suggest
that that gave him no opportunity for the win at all, whereas the choice
they took was to give both drivers the chance to win.

Remember, the gap at pit exit was tiny when Vettel rejoined. It was a
matter of something like 1.0s or less in terms of the sum of pitstop
differential (Vettel gained 0.5s there alone) and lap time differentials.

Kimi lap times
31 1:17.074
32 1:17.663
33 1:17.034
34 P 1:34.039
35 1:19.518
36 1:16.114
37 1:16.133
38 1:15.606
39 1:15.527
40 1:17.709

Seb lap times
31 1:17.166
32 1:17.052
33 1:17.188
34 1:16.592
35 1:16.446
36 1:16.264
37 1:15.587
38 1:15.238
39 P 1:32.673
40 1:18.650

Personally I see no deviousness there.
D Munz
2017-05-30 12:56:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled.
Well, it's easy to see that now, but in real time?
ISTR that even the experts who had predicted that Ferrari would prioritise Vettel were initially saying that he was going to run into traffic, lose time and thus not be able to catch Raikkonen.
The key moment was the Sauber being called in for it's stop. That created the clear air for Vettel to run in and bang in some fast laps.
So the interesting thing is whether or not their strategy call revolved around a judgement that the Sauber would pit.
But in the meantime the most likely scenario to me is that
a) Vettel got lucky
b) He took the luck with both hands and banged in some fast laps at the right time.
Agree 100% with this analysis.
Seems to me that Kimi was as screwed as Verstappen was, and neither were
happy about the outcome. Though if you'd said at the outset that giving
the lead car the first pitstop was the right thing to do, I doubt too many
would have disagreed.
Kimi lost this because he wasn't fast enough when leading, Seb was quick
when Kimi pitted, and Kimi was unfortunate (or Ferrari got it a bit wrong)
with having to put in slower laps whilst following traffic compared to
Seb flying around in clean air.
Seb is good at executing an "overcut" if he gets chance to get released
into free air. Coming at it the opposite way around, if Ferrari had pitted
Seb first I think it would have been a very legitimate criticism to suggest
that that gave him no opportunity for the win at all, whereas the choice
they took was to give both drivers the chance to win.
Remember, the gap at pit exit was tiny when Vettel rejoined. It was a
matter of something like 1.0s or less in terms of the sum of pitstop
differential (Vettel gained 0.5s there alone) and lap time differentials.
Kimi lap times
31 1:17.074
32 1:17.663
33 1:17.034
34 P 1:34.039
35 1:19.518
36 1:16.114
37 1:16.133
38 1:15.606
39 1:15.527
40 1:17.709
Seb lap times
31 1:17.166
32 1:17.052
33 1:17.188
34 1:16.592
35 1:16.446
36 1:16.264
37 1:15.587
38 1:15.238
39 P 1:32.673
40 1:18.650
Personally I see no deviousness there.
And, Kimi did get out well before RIC, which I think was the worry. When I saw how far ahead he was coming out, I didn't think there was any way Seb would pass him.

At the end of the day Seb drove a great stint and it paid off.

FWIW
DLM
Martin Harran
2017-05-30 17:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 30 May 2017 02:49:45 -0700 (PDT), larkim
Post by larkim
Post by Bobster
Post by Bigbird
I think there is a chance that if they had forced Vettel to pit first,
against normal protocol, he may well have achieved the undercut... then
what would you be saying?
I’ve now had a chance to think about the race in the cold light of day.
It would seem that whoever pitted first was going to be overhauled.
Well, it's easy to see that now, but in real time?
ISTR that even the experts who had predicted that Ferrari would prioritise Vettel were initially saying that he was going to run into traffic, lose time and thus not be able to catch Raikkonen.
The key moment was the Sauber being called in for it's stop. That created the clear air for Vettel to run in and bang in some fast laps.
So the interesting thing is whether or not their strategy call revolved around a judgement that the Sauber would pit.
But in the meantime the most likely scenario to me is that
a) Vettel got lucky
b) He took the luck with both hands and banged in some fast laps at the right time.
Agree 100% with this analysis.
Seems to me that Kimi was as screwed as Verstappen was, and neither were
happy about the outcome. Though if you'd said at the outset that giving
the lead car the first pitstop was the right thing to do, I doubt too many
would have disagreed.
Kimi lost this because he wasn't fast enough when leading, Seb was quick
when Kimi pitted, and Kimi was unfortunate (or Ferrari got it a bit wrong)
with having to put in slower laps whilst following traffic compared to
Seb flying around in clean air.
Seb is good at executing an "overcut" if he gets chance to get released
into free air. Coming at it the opposite way around, if Ferrari had pitted
Seb first I think it would have been a very legitimate criticism to suggest
that that gave him no opportunity for the win at all, whereas the choice
they took was to give both drivers the chance to win.
Remember, the gap at pit exit was tiny when Vettel rejoined. It was a
matter of something like 1.0s or less in terms of the sum of pitstop
differential (Vettel gained 0.5s there alone) and lap time differentials.
Kimi lap times
31 1:17.074
32 1:17.663
33 1:17.034
34 P 1:34.039
35 1:19.518
36 1:16.114
37 1:16.133
38 1:15.606
39 1:15.527
40 1:17.709
Seb lap times
31 1:17.166
32 1:17.052
33 1:17.188
34 1:16.592
35 1:16.446
36 1:16.264
37 1:15.587
38 1:15.238
39 P 1:32.673
40 1:18.650
Personally I see no deviousness there.
Kimi's average time over 3 laps before pitting was 1:17.257. Vettel's
average in following 5 laps - i.e. tyres even older than Kimi's - was
1:16.0254. That's a difference of 1.2 seconds per lap which has
nothing to either with luck or with deviousness by Ferrari. Vettel is
simply a faster driver.
b***@topmail.co.nz
2017-05-31 11:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by larkim
Seems to me that Kimi was as screwed as Verstappen was, and neither were
happy about the outcome. Though if you'd said at the outset that giving
the lead car the first pitstop was the right thing to do, I doubt too many
would have disagreed.
Red Bull don't have to worry about driver's championship. They are trying
for constructor's points. I can't see that they preference either driver.
larkim
2017-05-31 18:44:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Bottom line for me is they couldn't control Vettel's pace that finely to get him ahead, so on that basis since they accepted that either Vettel or Kimi would win.
Bobster
2017-05-31 02:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
So, Ferrari *did* elevate Vettel to first place by means of strategy, as
was widely predicted, but that strategy was entirely justified by
events. Tough on Kimi of course but Ferrari acted in the best interests
of the team.
After the pit stops Seb reinforced the decision by gaining time hand
over fist although I think this may have been partly because Kimi was by
now thoroughly demoralised and only drove as fast as he had to.
James Allen always provides a detailed and interesting analysis of strategies a couple of days after the race.

In the latest he allows that there are grounds for both schools of thought there IE that Ferrari manipulated the result on the one hand, or that Vettel just maximised the situation that he had on the other.

It might look like fence sitting, I suppose, but he concludes that Ferrari didn't contrive the result, but still got the result that everybody knows they would have preferred.

Interestingly he says that Ferrari, because of their financial situation, are less concerned with the WCC and will prioritise the WDC. Which goes to his conclusion - already Vettel is a much better bet for the WDC than Raikkonen.
Bobster
2017-05-29 05:29:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sir Tim
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does. Several of
us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would happen and it did.
Experts can't agree. I already mentioned Allen. Another who thought that it played out as it did in real time simply because Vettel got in fast laps when it mattered was Christian Horner.
Martin Harran
2017-05-29 06:39:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does. Several of
us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would happen and it did.
Experts can't agree.
Among those who think Ferrari set it up, I have yet to see an
explanation for Vettel, once he got clean air, being faster than Kimi
was before his pit stop. I don't see Kimi addressing that either.
Post by Bobster
I already mentioned Allen. Another who thought that it played out as it did in real time simply because Vettel got in fast laps when it mattered was Christian Horner.
CS
2017-05-29 07:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Harran
Among those who think Ferrari set it up, I have yet to see an
explanation for Vettel, once he got clean air, being faster than Kimi
was before his pit stop. I don't see Kimi addressing that either.
Post by Bobster
I already mentioned Allen. Another who thought that it played out as it did in real time simply because Vettel got in fast laps when it mattered was Christian Horner.
Agree. Kimi should have opened a bigger gap back to SV before his pitstop. He was after all running in clear air.
Bobster
2017-05-29 09:07:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Harran
Post by Bobster
Post by Sir Tim
You may believe that but I don't and I doubt that Kimi does. Several of
us, including Martin Brundle, predicted what would happen and it did.
Experts can't agree.
Among those who think Ferrari set it up, I have yet to see an
explanation for Vettel, once he got clean air, being faster than Kimi
was before his pit stop. I don't see Kimi addressing that either.
How could he know immediately after the race? He had a moment similar to Hamilton in the previous race. He was in the lead by, he thought, enough time. Then the pit stops happened. Then suddenly he wasn't in the lead but he doesn't know why.

Difference is that in the prior case, the beneficiary was not a teammate that the press had been hinting was going to get preferential treatment.
Loading...