All I was referring to was voting predictability. Of course it's a popular vote, but one can have opinions even if they are not the most popular (sic) ones, right?
One of the first things that I have been very interested in, when I began checking Retrobike was the BotM poll. Now I don't have any statistics, but my impression (which may or may not be correct) is that every time one of this, say, cliche bikes pop into the poll, they win it by default. I don't have a big problem with that, but I think it would be refreshing to see something else than the usual win. You don't have to agree with me. Maybe I just have some sort of "fan of the underdog" syndrome, who knows...
I love Kleins and Yetis; what's not to love about them? But sometimes the appreciation they receive is exaggerated. I hope the Yeti Tribe won't kill me if I say that bikes are in the end just bikes and shouldn't be treated like a religion. Which, of course, is completely contradictory to being here on Retrobike in the first place.
The best will win, with or without my unpopular opinions!
I think you're either misguided or lacking some history in terms of BOTM victors - either that, or polarised a certain way and won't see past it.
Go look at previous results (yes, there in the archive forum) there has been surprises and upsets.
We can all have a certain perspective, and I'm far from fawning over exotica or bikes of distinction - but all the same it's a popularity vote, and so may it remain.
Whether the bikes I personally prefer, win, or lose, does not matter to me, really, one jot (occasionally there may be the odd bike I think deserves to do well, or have been disappointed in not doing better, but all the same...). I think the competition is healthy in bringing out many bikes for appreciation.
We all have different tastes, but surely the incentive to show these bikes and be able to see them is a good thing? If the so called "cliched" or expected bikes do normally win, then so what? They're obviously what most who vote, want to win.