I have to admit that I am enough of a cynic that I have never believed any team when they claim their two drivers have "equal number one status".The only two times I can think of when that MIGHT have been a true claim were: 1967 when Clark and G Hill were at Lotus at the same time. I question its truth because Clark was much more familiar with the team and therefore enjoyed some advantages, intended or not. The other was McLaren with Prost and Senna.
In this case, I would be willing to bet that Hamilton is being paid (probably MUCH) more than Rosberg. That being the case, and with human nature and business being what they are (after all, the powers that be have to show that the added expense is justified), I rather imagine that LH gets all of the latest improvements before NR does. If so, that would raise the question "has the LH/NR "friendship" been dependent on the latter's being subservient?
I simply do not see how two drivers on the same team, given the competitive nature of racers, can ever be truly "friendly", and, if that is actually the case, how much of an adverse effect can this really have? I think it more likely that this simply lays bare the conflict that has existed just below the surface all along.
One Merc out of the way would like christmas come early tomorrow.
