No, my 700 doesn't need valve adjustments and revs to 10750. My 919 has the retuned CBR900RR motor which sadly does require valve lash adjustments. However, most of them it's just a check and not an actual adjustment. It's not a heavily stressed motor.
- - - Updated - - -
A better question: Why would you ride a motorcycle that requires a cam belt change every 12K and desmodromic valve adjustments (two rockers per valve) every 6000-7500 when just about every one of the competing bikes don't have cam belts to change and have twice as long between valve inspections? More wrenching = less riding.
The 696 needs the timing belt tension
checked at 7,500 miles, it needs changing every 15,000 miles (and we already established that's an easy job at home). Checking the valve clearances is also very quick on the Monster, remember that checking the tolerances doesn't mean you have to adjust it. The last time my VFR had the valves checked (which is much more involved than the Monster), everything was fine and nothing needed to be adjusted.
Really it comes down to this: What is the right bike for the rider? I'm all about reliability and low cost of ownership, but I'll be honest, for as good as the ST1300 is, it is just a tool. I like riding it, but I would not cry myself to sleep if it was run over by a cement mixer tomorrow. The only reason I bought that bike was because my knees hurt too much to ride the VFR800 on the long trips I wanted to do. All the people I ride with buy the bike that makes them happy. If reliability and low maintenance costs make you happy, then you've bought the right bike. For many, the Honda Nighthawk, 919, or VFR doesn't make them happy and they are willing to accept the maintenance of having a Ducati because it puts a smile on their face, looks great, and feels fantastic to ride. I can understand that, my VFR does that for me - the ST1300, not so much. The ST is a great machine in every objective measure, but I don't have an emotional connection to that bike the way I do to my VFR or the way Kiki does to her Monster. I can see how happy she is every time she talks about it, looks at it, rides it, and yes - even when we maintain it. That should be what riding is about, if you wanted to reduce decisions reliability and maintenance costs, we would all be driving beige Toyota Corollas.
One thing Ducati does understand, and I hate to say this, is passion. Their bikes ooze passion (and I really hope my friend doesn't see this, because I take the opposite position when talking to him), something not many Hondas can claim. Yes, the Honda is well engineered and well built, but there is that X-factor when I ride a Ducati that I just don't get from other bikes. Maybe that's worth something too.
- - - Updated - - -
Not by a ton? That's more than 30% more for the Ducati. That's a pretty significant difference, especially in that price segment.
And the Yamaha is not just some cheapo entry level bike, it's been almost universally lauded as one of the best bikes on the market, to the point that
MCN named it "overall machine of they year" in 2014, and German magazine Motorrad found it to be
the best value for money on the market in 2014.
You can pick up a one year old Monster 696 for the exact same price if you look around. I'm not knocking the Yamaha, it's a great machine - no argument from me on that. Spectre was saying that the Monster had inferior performance numbers, so I picked a well-regarded bike in the same class for comparison. I was in no way trying to diminish the Yamaha.
- - - Updated - - -
The FZ07 is an amazing bike. The Monster sound amazing and feels amazing, but I know the Yamaha would be better in almost every other category.
The Monster is more than just feel and sound. It is more powerful, lighter, and has bigger brakes. The Monster also has inverted forks, so there is less unsprung weight on the front end and better rigidity.