Wayne Cattach is the Chairman of TEGA (Touring Car Entrants Group Australia).

The first thing we'll go with is parity - which you're probably expecting.

The 'P' word?

The 'P' word, yeah. It's 8-nil and you've given us this thing called 4-zero. Do you think that's a good response?

Well, I haven't given it anything. I mean, we've introduced the system to address parity. Going back in history we had a PRC, before AVESCO took control of the rights. We've since replaced that with a Parity Review System and it looks at 10 Holdens and 10 Fords, over 20 laps and it examines their race speed. It ignores things like pitlane errors, team work, strategy ... all those things that can lose races. It asks, based on racing speed, 'can this make potentially beat the other make?'. And the answer is, at this stage there is not a sufficiently clear trend to suggest, based on race-track performance, that an adjustment should be made.

But it doesn't take into account four cars can be out front and cruising?

It looks at 10 Holdens and it looks at their race speed. It looks at the top 10 Fords.

Very complex though, isn't it?

I think it's actually simple.

Your position is Chairman of TEGA?

Correct.

And you've had the casting vote in a board which is six, six and one?

Yes.

Why haven't you exercised that vote in the past?

I haven't exercised it because, first, people were challenging the fact that I had it. I think that's now been put to one side and everybody accepts that I've got it. The opportunity for me to use the casting vote is there if it's split and so I make the decision. I wanted to use the casting vote to introduce a system to evaluate parity, to fix the problem once and for all. I did not want to use the casting vote to simply say 'give the Ford a new undertray' or whatever, which is really just a one-off temporary fix.

It's been reported that part of your reluctance to use that casting vote, because the Ford is clearly behind in the figures, was your previous involvement with DJR. Is that true?

Yes, it has been reported.

Is that a fair statement?

I think it's a ridiculous statement. If you go up and down pitlane and you look at the number of people that have changed teams and loyalties with it; some of these engineers for example have got every team uniform known to the sport hanging in their wardrobe. I'm a professional, this is a job and I do it professionally. I have a track record in that respect. It's an argument you could use if all other arguments fail.

If it was an issue, would you quit?

If it was an issue? I would quit.

Do you think the TEGA board with its balanced structure is a workable proposition, or is it always going to be a nightmare?

It's always going to be difficult. Particularly when it's got to deal with emotional things like parity. It's very hard to be objective and that's why we introduced the system we now have.

Tony Cochrane (who had just walked in) mentioned that he thinks the TEGA Board is now much more workable - is it?

Well, the TEGA board has actually had quite a few significant problems to grapple with. The sport has grown massively, the documentation that was put together initially was designed to try and get cars on the grid. Now we've got the reverse problem - we've got too many cars and not enough grid space. The amount of dollars necessary to sustain teams is now enormous. The sponsors obviously want their pound of flesh so all of those challenges have to be dealt with documentation... which is a bit tardy. I think there was a view among the competitors that they could run the sport from pitlane. It's now a $14 million sport. It can't be run from pitlane.

What cars are in your garage?

A Ford and a Subaru.

Is there parity between the Ford and the Subaru?

Well, one's 4WD and the other one has a crappy driver.

Tony Cochrane, what's he like to work with?

A challenge.

You have a few shouting matches at times?

No. He shouts and I listen.

Did you get any interesting phone calls from people at Ford after the 4-Nil was released?

I think they've been pretty mature about it. I mean, they had an expectation that something more substantial would happen but the system is transparent, they understand how it's being used. It would be fair to say that if the system was applied to another four races earlier in the season, then there would have been a parity adjustment. But the last four race meetings in isolation did not produce a result.

Why 0.13s?

I think you need a margin for error, if you like... it's just a margin there to say look, if it was less than 0.13, you would ignore it. There's got to be some number and that number was determined by the committee after looking at the differences over the full season of racing.

So you chose that before you did the analysis?

Yes, we did not know what the numbers would produce until the system had been voted in and the committee had determined the margin. When that had all been done and submitted, we ran the numbers.

Do you think that the spectator appeal at the moment is as high as everybody thinks?

Well the only thing we can go on are the indicators, and all indicators suggest that, well, with the exception of Canberra, our crowds are up across the board and our television ratings continue to climb. So the answer to that question is, yes.

Wasn't Darwin down though, on race day?

Yes, but it made up on Saturday, so we look at it over the entire weekend, which I think is the only way to look at it.

But do you think that what we've got now is just the dedicated motorsport fans? You'll probably never lose them in a sense, but while you've got one make dominating, you're not going to get people from AFL, for example, coming over as much as possible.

Well we share a Telecaster with AFL so that's creating a few opportunities, but more particularly, yes, people like to see a contest, but an honest contest. I'm not sure they're yet ready, or have been ready anywhere in the world in motorsport to see excellence rewarded with a penalty. We basically want to make sure that both sides have the opportunity to win races.

There are probably other things that we should be looking at to destabilise the cars a bit, put more of the challenge in the hands of the driver and maybe create less opportunities for the better funded teams to spend money to their advantage. And I think those things are now on the agenda and with the formation of the new technical committee, I'm expecting that some of those issues in terms of cost and destabilisation might advance a bit further.

So the argument that TEGA's lack of activity on parity has damaged the sport - you would reject that?

Well, there's no evidence to support it and that doesn't mean to say that we are complacent about it. It's a very real argument that if this continues ad nauseam we might see a drop-off. I mean, it's a fact of life that we're seeing a drop-off in television ratings with Formula One because of the Ferrari supremacy, we'll watch that very carefully, but we don't believe it will continue forever.

We've got new cars coming on stream for next year and if there is an inefficiency with the AU Falcon, it should be corrected with the new Barra, which I'm told is going to be a remarkable race car.

And next year is slightly different as well, isn't it? That there is actually guaranteed parity, whereas that doesn't exist at the moment?

Well no, there's no guaranteed parity. I mean, there'll be the same bolts and nuts put together on both cars.

But doesn't Blueprint say that the front and rear of each car will push down the same, whereas it doesn't actually do that now?

Yes, but that's very hard to measure and you're saying measure down force to the exact increment. That's practically impossible. We'll get it as close as possible and our expectations are that both cars will roll off the production line and be equal. And we'll work very hard to have that happen. But just in case they're not, we'll have the parity model.

So you think 16 kg downforce on the front of a Falcon to 60 kg on a Commodore ... is that good?

I wouldn't have a clue. I mean, I think a 90 kg woman is too heavy, but I wouldn't have clue about downforce on the front of a car.

So you'd take a 16 kg woman?

Particularly if she's five foot one.