No offense intended to anybody posting on here, but I don't understand why anybody would pay $1000 for a bicycle. Isn't the Mustachian point of getting a bicycle to save money from not using your car? It would take forever to get back the cost savings from buying a $1000 bicycle.
We probably gain $1000 a year from the fact our bikes mean one motor vehicle rather than two in the household, even for reasonably mustachian choices of motor vehicle. Actually it's only the fact the in-laws live somewhere really awkward that stops us going car-free, although that wouldn't be the entirety of another $1000 because there'd be some train and car rental in there.
That said, although we have a few $k worth of bikes, I've never bought an individual bike for more than $700, although upgrades, etc probably mean my least-mustachian triathlon bike might have ended up owing me twice that. I'll reclaim most of that by selling it though.
Of the purely transport bikes, the most expensive was our tandem, which is also the only one bought new and probably stands us at $800 by the time kid seats, etc were factored in (allowing our whole family of four to travel on one bike!). Only had that 6 months, so it's probably only saved us $100 or so in fuel, parking, bus fares, etc.
My commuting bike was bought used for about $250, and I've done over 5600 miles on it. I have worn out a set of wheels and various other bits though, so maybe again $800 total costs over that time. Going forward this one is likely to do 400+ miles a year now I'm only cycle commuting.
Probably the most likely to raise eyebrows in our fleet is that child #1's (4yo) current bike was over $300 used, and that he's had nearly $600 worth of bikes in under three years. However, both his ability and enthusiasm for cycling are way beyond his peers, #2 will end up riding them all as well, and they will still have some residual value even after that. So no regrets.