Vettel continues his supercar sell-off

RaceFans Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: A little-driven super car belonging to recently retired F1 champion Vettel is on the market.

In brief

Vettel selling 10-year-old Nissan GT-R

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, 2020
Vettel began selling his road cars after leaving Ferrari
Recently retired four-times Formula 1 world champion Sebastian Vettel is selling a Nissan GT-R Black Edition supercar from his car collection.

The asking price for the petrol-powered car, which has an automatic gearbox, is €250,000 (£221,906). It has been driven just 150 kilometres since entering Vettel’s possession in July 2012, and has been based in his collection in Switzerland since then.

In recent years Vettel has become an advocate for eco-friendly behaviour. In 2021 he put another eight cars, including five Ferraris, up for sale.

Formula 4 to support Mexican GP

Mexico’s NACAM Formula 4 championship has a long history with the country’s Formula 1 race, with the inaugural F4 race to take place in Mexico running in support of the 2015 Mexican Grand Prix.

The championship has supported every edition of the grand prix held since then, and will continue to do so in 2023 following the announcement of its calendar for the season.

Mexico City will hold four rounds, including the F1-supporting finale, Queretaro will host two and former Formula E venue Puebla will also have a round. Following the season there will be a non-championship event in Mexico City.

F1 juniors start season in UAE

The F4 United Arab Emirates championship gets underway this weekend, and has attracted several talents backed by F1 teams.

Red Bull junior Arvid Lindblad is racing for Hitech GP before he moves to Prema for the Italian F4 season, and that team has signed McLaren junior Ugo Ugochukwu for the UAE campaign.

Prema is also providing technical support to the Mumbai Falcons team, who are running Ferrari juniors Tuukka Taponen and James Wharton.

There are several drivers competing with well-known racing fathers, including Hamda Al Qubaisi, Brando Badoer, Fernando Barrichello, Jakob Bergmeister and Niko Lacorte.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Comment of the day

FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has defended recently made revisions to the International Sporting Code that restrict competitors’ freedom of political expression at race events, and he has said it will clear that there will be punishments for those who make statements on political matters without the FIA’s consent.

“If not, if they make any other mistake, it’s like speeding in the pit lane. If you do it, it’s very clear what you get.”

Is it clear what you get? I bet that if Hamilton showed up to the first race wearing a BLM shirt, the FIA wouldn’t have a clue how to handle it.

Have they defined what a “political statement” is? If they’re asked about something in an interview, will they be punished if they answer it or should they say “no comment”. What punishment will be given if someone breaches the rules? Is it the same regardless of what the driver does or is there a scale?

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Abdurahman, Brian Frank and Al!

Author information

Ida Wood
Often found in junior single-seater paddocks around Europe doing journalism and television commentary, or dabbling in teaching photography back in the UK. Currently based...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

45 comments on “Vettel continues his supercar sell-off”

  1. There’s a lot of people that seem to be defending drivers ‘political statements’. Most or all of these political statements are left leaning statements. I wonder if those same defenders would defend a driver with right leaning political statements.

    This is why I’m against ‘political statements’. I don’t want to see right leaning statements nor left leaning statements. And if you allow one, you’re going to have to allow the other. It seems to me that a lot of people haven’t thought this through.

    1. What are right leaning political statements?

      1. Make America Great Again lol

      2. I personally think it’s rather centrist, but some would argue British people wearing poppies for remembrance in November is right wing. Certainly it is political (e.g., Irish footballers playing in England choose not to wear it for political reasons), and other sporting bodies have fined British teams for wearing them on their kit before. It’s caused all sorts of fuss. Is the FIA going to fine Williams, for example, if their team wear them in a race around 11 November? They should if they’re consistent.

        1. You know that was started by an American, right?

          Honoring the people that we ordered to go shoot other people, regardless of why, is not right wing, nor is it left wing. It’s paying respect to people who were given a crappy job that could have killed them.

          Argue as much as you like about the policies that sent our veterans into combat. But don’t blame them for doing their job, and don’t use it as a political weapon.

          1. I’m 71 and my Dad fought in Burma, in the Durham Light infantry, and he never forgot to wear a poppy and he once told me it was a sign of respect to the men he fought with. Those who didn’t have a grave where people could go to show respect needed something to keep their sacrifices in everyone’s memory.

            Sadly there are less and less people every year who actually remember why they went to war with their enemy, but I’ll defend his right to wear a poppy for his mates wherever I damned please. It has nothing to do with Politics, or the reasons why war broke out, it’s purely for those who died and the respect they deserve.

            I agree with you 100% Sir.

    2. Climate change and human rights aren’t political statements. Good try though.

      1. Yes, yes they are. How climate change is treated is a political decision, so whatever your views on climate change are, they are political statements. Same with human rights, it’s not the same all over the world. What you say in North Korea is different to what you say in Croatia, or whatever.

        Hence why it’s impossible to “cancel” political statements. Everything can be turned into one.

        1. Climate science isn’t political– climate science has been politicized.

          But the climate doesn’t care if you’re a republican or a democrat or a fascist or a sovereign citizen. All will pay equally, because no one has been willing to do anything to combat climate change, preferring instead to point fingers and claim it is, or isn’t, the result of human influence.

          The bottom line is, it doesn’t matter who or what’s causing it– it’s happening, we’re not doing enough to prepare for it.

          Our children and their children will universally condemn our inaction.

          That’s not politics. That’s fact.

      2. Climate change and human rights aren’t political statements

        Then why all the hypocrite politicians and their woke puppets are forcing that narrative down our throats ?

        1. It’s time for you to re-enter reality.

        2. Then stay asleep, your mouth will be shut, you wont have to swallow anything.

        3. Here we go

        4. They’re not, really. I guess you feel Jesus was being political when he suggested we might all try to be a bit nicer to each other, and look out for each other.

          “woke” is just a label for “I don’t have to listen to you”.

      3. Exactly what is it that protesters and activists are calling for?
        Right – political policy change….

        If that’s not the definition of a political statement, then what is?

        1. But what if the driver is not directly calling for policy change, but trying to spread awareness of certain realities? Is that then political? If a driver discusses the science of climate change for example, is that a political statement? Are certain scientific topics off limits because they are deemed to be political?

          1. Many hypothetical questions to consider….
            So far, most of the controversial things drivers have brought up have been political – either directly (calling for government/s to change policy or take a specific course of action) or indirectly (bringing specific attention to a subject so that others are encouraged to apply pressure for policy change).
            It’s hard to say what the FIA would do in other circumstances…

            I can’t see how a discussion about the science of climate would be political – provided it sticks to the science and isn’t misused in a way that glorifies misinformation based on opinion or applies any form of pressure to anyone – and fits within the FIA’s and F1’s codes.
            It would be extremely unlikely, however, that this would take place at an F1 event, because it simply doesn’t belong there. It’s not racing event subject matter, and that is enough reason for it to be eliminated.
            I think many scientific topics can be off limits for the reason I just gave – a racing event is neither the time nor the place for that discussion.

            Drivers’ personal social media, and unofficial/completely unrelated media, on the other hand…. Perfect.

      4. Climate change may not be political, but the response to it is. From addressing causes to mitigating effects, whatever a country does or does not do is a political choice. Also arguably also a moral one.

        The concept of human rights is completely political. Most forms can even be dated to a specific decade. There’s a strong case to be made that modern European views on human rights are great, but that doesn’t make them a universal default that transcends politics and culture.

        1. MichaelN,

          Spot on !

          The G20 (the climate change champions) have been banning the funding of any fossil fuel related projects in the African continent. According to them Africans don’t have to have their own industries, infrastructures as the developed countries and this was done in the name of the planet.

          Africa which have a lot of resources and which contribute by less than 3% of the total global emissions , it could be less if we eliminate South Africa, must follow the same strict emissions and environment related measures of the already developed country who has been destroying the planet since the industrial revolution. This is like imposing a strict diabetic diet on a non-diabetic person.

          After the Russian invasion to Ukraine and due to the US led sanctions on Russia. The European countries and to get off the hook forgot their climate change agenda for a second and went to Africa asking them to ramp up fossil fuels and gas production after they were imposing a ban on any fossil fuel related project.

          In May 2022 the German Chancellor Scholz Kicks off went on a trip to Africa by visiting Senegal and said his country is interested in a major gas exploitation project there. France, Italy and EU officials visited Algeria that have significant deposits of natural gas and this is to first ramp up gas production and second to accelerate the work on a new Trans-Saharan (Nigeria, Niger, Algeria) gas pipeline designed to carry 30 Bcm/year of gas to the European market.

          Now these climate change warriors out of the sudden do not care anymore about climate chnage once their countries and economies are in danger. France have been milking Uranium from Niger for nearly five decades to power their nuclear reactors to produce electricity and nobody cares about the people there and the conditions in which Uranium is extracted.

          Nobody cares about the reality of Cobalt mining in Congo that is used in every rechargeable battery. Many thanks to Siddharth Kara who exposed the hypocrisy of the climate change and green business warriors. He was interviewed by Joe Rogan by the way.

          1. This is like imposing a strict diabetic diet on a non-diabetic person.

            Interesting point, however the point you miss is that these diabetics are “allowed” (in the loosest possible sense – allowed is the wrong term but my brain hurts) to continue with their increasingly sugary diet, then that individual will become diabetic

            Using this analogy, if these countries continue their path of increasingly carbon based industrialisation, it will completely undermine the progress towards decarbonisation elsewhere in the world. There are better ways to facilitate lifting populations out of poverty


          2. G,
            All African countries combined contribute by less than 3% of the total global emissions. It doesn’t make sense to impose on them the same restrictions as the countries responsible for the other 97%. Besides, most of the African countries with exception of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and South Africa have the lowest percentage in terms of electricity access for population.

            Niger for example whose Uranium has been powering France nuclear reactors since the 70s is seeking the goal of universal electricity access by 2035. How a power grid for electric cars for example can be implemented there where only 19% of the population have access to electricity. It doesn’t make sense nor it’s feasible in the near future.

            The transformation to a clean world must be done in a reasonable way and when the technology allows. It must also be led by the industry experts and not by out of control politicians.

            Using this analogy, if these countries continue their path of increasingly carbon based industrialisation, it will completely undermine the progress towards decarbonisation elsewhere in the world

            I still cannot fathom this reasoning. Why not the other way round ? Why for example countries like the US, Canada, Germany, Japan and China who combined produce more than 50% of the global emissions reduce their emissions. I think that’s more reasonable than for example forcing African countries to stay in the middle ages.

            Climate change is just a political card hold by the superpowers to wave whenever it suits their agendas. As demonstrated by the Ukrainian war, once their economies are in danger they will stop caring about the planet.

        2. But human rights are also a thing the FIA says they support. So is that the FIA being political (and only allowing its own message through?), or understanding of how a world where everyone is at a base level considered equal, a universal good. Like climate change, some things can’t help that there are actors that make them political for their own ends, rather than common sense.

    3. For one thing, how is that different from the way things were before the FIA issues this directive? Second, if you’re saying that, for example, advocating for selective human rights is equally as valid a position as advocating for equal human rights, it so happens that we live at a time when that position is generally condemned. If history had taken a different course up until now, a different view might prevail, but it doesn’t. Third, people on the right, it seems to me, tend to confuse the right to say anything with the right to not be slapped down for saying terrible things. As far as I can tell anyone can say anything they want at any time and place, but that doesn’t excuse them from having to face whatever reactions their statements elicit in others.

  2. Is Vettel donating the proceeds to charity or putting them to some other green initiative? The car already exists, so arguably its better for the environment for them to sit unused in his garage than someone else ripping around in them.

    Either way I don’t care. Just some food for thought.

    1. It’s much better for someone to buy his one than a new one, the carbon cost on a car is very high before it has a single mile on it. Not that it says anything about this being the reason he is doing it but yeh.

      1. Good point.

  3. Stoffel is an AM reserve driver?? Didn’t know about this. Thought he’d want to stay as far away from Alonso as possible.

  4. If the car still exists then Vettel has achieved ZERO for his green leaning. In fact if it goes from just sitting in his garage to someone who actually uses it he will have caused more of what he bleats about. He could have had the car recycled as a bike stand. Still a hypocrite.

    1. Hypocrite; but with so many pats-on-the back from himself, his management team, and his foolish fans, us peasants have no idea how good those pats feel.

      I wonder if Vettel has already decided which private planes he will use to fly around the planet on his multiple vacations this year…

    2. I love how those who say that humans in general should reduce their impact on the environment are apparently hypocrites because they haven’t reduced their own impact to zero.

      1. “Ah, you SAY you’re a vegetarian, but you appear to be made out of meat. Checkmate, hypocrite!”

        1. @red-andy: you just made my day.

          I will, utterly shamelessly, steal that one, and now eagerly await the slightest chance to drop it into a conversation.

          1. Indeed @red-andy, hadn’t heard that one, it’s one to remember.

    3. He is an endearing chap. Not too clever though. Also not an unfriendly fellow so I wish him all the best. He made me laugh a couple of times but I don’t think history will remember him.

  5. How is selling cars ecofriendly when you don’t drive them in the first place…?

  6. 150km. That’s not a lot

    1. Hasn’t even had it’s first oil change yet.

      Imagine – shipping a sports car halfway around the world and then never driving it…. How environmentally friendly.

    2. It’s also bordering on ridiculous. If he just wants to watch the car, then rather than having it build, tested, shipped, prepared, etc. he might as well put a picture up on the TV. It’s actually how most people enjoy these cars!

      1. When he received the car, Red Bull had Nissan sponsorship, it was likely a gift from the Japanese, who would have been offended if he turned it down. A culture thing.

  7. In the collectible car business, I can’t imagine the new owner putting a lots of miles on it. Turn your 250 K into 25 K pretty quick. Just sayin’!

    1. These are hardly collectables… Nissan made 1700 of this Black Edition – which had little more than wheels, seats and carbon rear spoiler as upgrades from standard spec (all easily interchangeable parts).

      Vettel isn’t short of 250K’s…. Making a loss on this wouldn’t noticeably affect his (vast, enormous) wealth.

  8. Blimey there is a lot of people on here trying to take the moral high ground against seb selling one of his cars……. as they type their comments on an iphone/samsung et al. as there is only 150km on it I presume its carbon footprint is a lot less than a brand new Tesla (thats powered by fossil fuel burning power stations) but hey, its easy to shout down a celeb from behind a keyboard.

  9. Vettel is a retired driver soon to be 40 and father of 3.
    A minivan collection will make much more sense.

  10. In recent years Vettel has become an advocate for eco-friendly behaviour.

    Interested to see how long this lasts when the lights on him turn off.

Comments are closed.