I think that brings out an important debate - what is the "best" car though. Cars IMO should be given points for speed, but have points taken off for unreliability. The Ferrari has been the most bulletproof car, and if memory serves, the Renault was the most reliable car in 2005 as well, made very starkly clear in comparison to Raikkonen's car back then.
I think if you take the season from the start of the European leg - it's actually arguable the 2012 Ferrari is possibly the 2nd best car of 2012 - the race pace is very good and equal with the best now, just that they're getting caught out in qualifying and so having to fight through the pack through the starts and through the early laps, by which time its competitors will have created a gap down the road. It's also the most reliable among the 3 consistently racewinning cars.
It seems to be stronger on the harder tyres, generally, which further hurts its qualifying. Point in case - the Ferrari being marginally quicker than the Red Bull on the prime stint in India, while being slower in the option stint. The same thing happened for Silverstone too.
I think that car is in no way a qualifying monster - but we have to give it some points over its rivals for reliability, wet weather pace as well as race pace.
This is in no way a slight to Alonso - but I think the car is rather underrated.
Alonso is, in my view, the jack of all trades of F1 - good in all areas, but excels in none. He's the student that becomes valedictorian by virtue of being a straight A student. In individual subjects, other students have A+'s, but as an overall package Alonso would have the highest GPA.
Note that my use of the word excels is relative though!
For example, I still view Hamilton as a better overtaker, Vettel as being the better qualifier/cold-tyre-lapper, Button as the better on-track brain, but crucially they're 3 different people - the qualities aren't all in the same guy.
