Deepfaked athletes, copied designs, and the blurry future of cycling apparel.
Chapter 1: Intro
Maybe it’s popped up in your social media feeds too: a glitchy little video of a cyclist riding in colourful kit, fast cuts, eye-catching modern production. At some point it twigs – the EF helmet is a giveaway – that the rider is Lachlan Morton. Same face, same scraggly beard. The kit brand is new to you, and there’s no branding on it anywhere. A logo card flashes up at the end of the video: RockBros Clothing.
Maybe you click on the ad, or maybe you don’t. But something about it lodges in your brain. Perhaps you wonder whether Morton has a new endorsement deal, or EF Education-Easypost has switched kit suppliers (it has, but from Rapha to Assos). What you probably don’t immediately expect is that Morton never wore this kit at all.
Barely a day passes without something raising fresh alarm about the rapid advances in artificial intelligence. Today, it has come for cycling clothing.
Chapter 2: A bit of backstory
Let’s rewind a bit, to 2010. Per RockBros’ version of its company history, the brand – then known as Zhejiang ROCKBROS Sports Goods Co. Ltd. – was founded in 2010 by two cycling enthusiasts in Yiwu, China, a couple of hundred kilometres southwest of Shanghai. Their vision, based on the realisation that “there was hardly any high-quality, affordable equipment on the market” was a simple one: “to enable more cycling enthusiasts to enjoy affordable cycling equipment”.
Much of the company’s early growth was in China and Asia, but 2013-14 was when they first landed on the radar of many western consumers (or mine, at least). Spurcycle – manufacturers of a US-made bell that is still widely regarded as the pinnacle of its niche – began seeing RockBros-branded copies of their products appearing on Amazon and other marketplaces, like AliExpress. These were, seemingly, backward-engineered replicas of the Spurcycle bell, right down to similarities in the packaging and presentation. A patent law loophole meant that by the time Spurcycle realised what had happened, it was too late; the bird had flown the coop.
A tale of two bells: Spurcycle vs. the counterfeiters | CyclingTips
Spurcycle launched its bicycle bell in August 2013 as so many companies do these days: via the crowdfunding web site, Kickstarter. When the campaign ended, the company had 8000 orders on hand — 16 times what was originally forecast — all thanks to the bell’s distinctive design, small-batch artisan construction, and one hell of a …
Today, a Spurcycle bell retails for US$60, but faces competition from the visually-identical RockBros bell (US$15); there are even cheaper non-branded copies on AliExpress for just a couple of dollars. They’re not as good, obviously, but for a broad swathe of consumers, the economics make sense, IP be damned.
Over the years since, RockBros’ growth has continued. The company is now a group of five sub-brands, with a product line that “spans various categories, including complete bicycles, cycling apparel, cycling accessories, cycling components, outdoor sports equipment, and smart sports devices”. It has increasingly been seen as a legitimate alternative to mainstream western brands, and has physical stores in several countries, including Australia, the US, Japan, and Germany. The company claims that “every product we create is carefully designed, ensuring continuous innovation and refinement”, but it is debatable how much design they actually do: one industry source I spoke to suggested that many of their products are rebadged versions of products licensed from third party OEM manufacturers, a practice that is not uncommon even among western brands.
And then – well, then there’s the clothing.
Chapter 3: Visual doping
The company’s apparel side-brand, RockBros Clothing, is ostensibly based in New Jersey, rather than China, and has an ambition to “disrupt the peloton. We combine gallery-worthy aesthetics with podium-level performance…. Our kits are not for the shy. They are for the rule-breakers, the weekend warriors, and the artists of the road.”
“This is Visual Doping: when you look fast and feel bold, you ride harder.”
Across the designs currently listed on their website, there are models available for both men and women, with inspiration drawn “from nature’s chaos—blooming florals, abstract glitches, and kinetic strokes.” Some items are in the company’s core range, and others, in the ‘Artist Lab’ series are produced on demand in limited runs; RockBros claims that these are “a collaborative project between RockBrosClothing and visionary graphic artists from around the globe.”
The design that was never worn by Lachlan Morton (despite appearances) falls into this category. Last week, when I was first tipped off to this apparent instance of AI trickery, it felt clear that a line had been crossed: Morton is paid to ride for the sponsors that pay his salary, and has built a substantial following for his continent-crossing, record-breaking rides over a number of years. For his likeness to be used to market a cycling kit brand – in fact, not just a likeness; it is him, just with a change of outfit – felt like a calculated move to boost RockBros’ credibility.
In the most charitable interpretation, this seemed deeply deceptive.
It got worse. Clicking around to other designs showed that this was not an isolated incident: the ‘Men’s Quantum Grid Optical-Illusion Pro Jersey’ featured another famous face; Mathieu van der Poel, again pictured riding in a kit that he never wore. Remco Evenepoel in RockBros clothing, saluting the crowd after winning gold at the Paris Olympics.
Several clothing models in the women’s range felt suspicious, too: I recognised the Girona-based influencer/content creator, German athlete Alina Jäger (@clippedinandfree), who has 250,000 followers on Instagram. There was also an appearance by the Swiss mountain bike rider and 2020 Olympic champion, Jolanda Neff.
Did we do a good job with this story?