In the eight or so months that this column has been running I’ve given my point of view on a range of different topics. The column is called Roland’s View. For those in any doubt at all, let me spell it out: my column is not the news … it is an opinion piece, and as such some people will agree with the content and others will disagree.

How boring would it be to read a weekly column that everyone agreed with every time?

We are fortunate enough to live in a country where freedom of opinion is a given. The right to freedom of expression, on the other hand, does come with some responsibilities attached to it.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone who doesn’t share my opinion about a particular subject, especially those people who express their disagreement in a coherent and considered way.

However, to call my opinions “purposefully dishonest”, as a team owner did on social media last week, showed disregard for the possibility that we may well have differing views on some issues.

Furthermore, whilst my view on a subject may well be proven to be factually wrong at some future point, I can assure all my readers that I will never be “purposefully dishonest”, nor will I “lie” to them.

I’m sure that if Supercars were absolutely sure that Gen3 parity at the moment is “demonstrably and quantifiably wrong” then they would act. I suspect that the real issue is that this has not been demonstrably and quantifiably proven to be the case to date.

And just to underline the point that we will all agree on some points and disagree on others, the very same team owner who voiced his views on Twitter last week, was very quick to text me directly and congratulate me on the column I wrote last year about Peter Adderton and his right or otherwise to a Teams Racing Charter.

That’s how it should be. For sure I don’t expect agreement on every topic but please make the opposing point of view without using terms such as “purposefully dishonest” as that’s simply not the case.

Meanwhile, it’s probably worth noting that, over in the USA, at the time of writing there have been 14 NASCAR Cup Series races. Of those, Chevrolet has won eight, Toyota four and Ford just two.

NASCAR is, like Supercars, a technical parity formula rather than a sporting parity one.

So, is it possible that in NASCAR, like Supercars, some drivers and teams are doing a better job than others?

Certainly, the article published in Autoweek in the US at the weekend points to a lack of consistency on the part of Ford teams as being an issue – something that I called out here in Australia in Supercars on the Ford side.

It is also worth pointing out that, enshrined within every Teams Racing Charter, there is a clause that highlights the responsibility of the individual homologation teams to present cars and/or engines for homologation that are competitive.

It also makes it clear that Supercars is not responsible for a car and/or engine that is uncompetitive.  The onus is clearly on the homologation team to present a competitive package.

Supercars must, of course, measure performance and use their best endeavours to ensure as level a playing field as is reasonably possible in five specific areas including engine power.

If, as has been suggested, there is a drivability issue with the Ford engine, then it’s up to the homologation team to present something better without, of course, undermining the engine power parity that has already been established.

It is also a fact that this is not the first time that Supercars has embraced engines of very different layouts. The Nissans, the Volvos and the Mercedes that raced at various times during the life of the previous generation of cars all had engines of a similar configuration to the current Ford.

I would draw attention to the fact that the Nissan has shown itself to be highly competitive in Super2 in recent years, which rather underlines the value of the other variables – how good a job is a team and/or driver doing?

Would the car have been capable of winning more regularly in the main series in the hands of another team or other drivers? We’ll never know, but Matthew White Motorsport did take the Altima to two Super2 series wins.

At the end of the day, I believe that there’s enough evidence out there to support the view that two Supercars teams are doing a better job than the rest at the moment and that’s why, Race 1 at Newcastle apart, they’ve won every race to date between them.

Do I expect everyone to share that view? No, I do not.

Exactly as I suspect that not everyone will share my belief that Motorsport Australia taking a view on the adoption of The Voice to Parliament is inappropriate. In my opinion, sport, wherever possible, should remain out of politics. It isn’t a question of which way I personally will vote, it’s a question of my right to choose without pressure from a motorsports body.

For the record, I actively support the inclusion of Indigenous peoples in our sport through my involvement in the award-winning Racing Together program. I don’t talk about inclusion – I, like many others, am actually trying to be proactive in doing something about this.

Meanwhile, leave politics for the politicians. Not everyone will agree with me. So be it.

Read last week’s Roland’s View here.