I also think RBR are the best when it comes to strategies. But you shouldn't forget that it didn't come easy for them. Their whole 2010 season was all about strategy cock ups (2009 also).
I think what is advantage of E20 is disadvantage for the strategists. It's E20's kindness on the tyres. It seems as the strategists always have in mind that they easly can go longer into the stints. They want to build on this advantage but those strategies aren't agressive enough when you are fighting at the top. They are great for recovering though
Winners' starting position:
Button - second
Alonso - eighth (rain)
Rosberg - first
Vettel - first
Maldonado - first
Webber - first
Hamilton - second
Alonso - eleventh but it should have been Vettel from - first
Webber - second
Should RB strategist be criticized that Vettel didn't win the race in Silverstone? No amount of aggressive RB type of strategy will make a win easy from lower starting positions, whether or not car is easy on tyres.
Closest to the regular best result was Valencia, fourth in qualifying, one position gained at the start, one through risky overtake. It was only theoretical problem because RB was out of reach but even ten laps of being blocked behind Hamilton made fighting for the win very difficult. On the other hand there was no place for alternative strategies there.
About Allison's comment: I would think it has more to do with figuring out qualifying and general development and reserves the car has. We'll see.
Good tracks for Lotus: Germany, Japan, Brazil, India, USA, Korea (or OK?)
OK: Abu Dhabi, Singapore, Hungary, Spa (or good?)
Bad: Monza (?)