We also had several races where midfield teams had cars near the front of the grid in qualifying and challenged for podiums. However, there were too many variables to determine the car's true pace. Things such as the Pirelli tyres muddled the results.
Some of you will say that the best car is the one with the highest Constructors Championship standing, and I agree with that to an extent .
Williams for example, was considered to have made a significant improvement as evidenced by Pastor's win and Q3's. However, I think many people agree here that the car had much more potential than what was extracted by Pastor and Bruno, and yet they were only 8th in the CC despite having a car so (apparently) good that some forum users pondered the thought of Hamilton going to them. Peter Sauber, after Sergio's podium in (I think) Monza was adamant that his team's car was not one of the fastest on the day, but THE fastest. I found that strange since he doesn't appear to be the kind of man to make statements such as those . Force India's were also struck with bad luck compared to other teams at the start and were tickling the podium during the latter half of the season.
So it appeared to me that a large majority of forum users here agreed at one point or another that each midfield car was very good and was being let down by their drivers or poor strategy.
My question essentially is, if you put a HAM/VET/ALO in each midfield car, which do you think is the strongest?
Edited by SUPRAF1, 14 January 2013 - 05:23.