Not really.
By the time a driver gets into F1 he is certainly one of the best in the world so even the ones fans like to slag off are super exceptional. It varies a bit from year to year but most years in my experience, I started part time in 1974 and full time from 1976 to 2009, the difference between the cars exceeded that between the drivers, so pretty well any of them were good enough to be world champion, they only needed to be better than their team mate if they were in the best car.
My responsibility was the concept design of the car, mainly aero, and getting the best setup at the circuit. I did all the testing and the car setup for the race.
Getting the best setup is all about optimising the suspension to fly the car at the optimum ride height through the most important corners and getting the tyre temperature as near to optimum for as much of the grip limited part of the corner as possible.
It was me not the driver who achieved this and all the drivers I worked with were quick with the optimum setup and not a different one. Whenever one driver wanted a different setup to his team mate one was slower than the other.
Mind you I rarely had 2 drivers of identical talent in the team Jones and Reutemann had identical setups, for example and if one was quicker with a change the other would be happy to adopt it without trying. Mostly the better of the two was only a bit better but always was.
The reality is it is the drivers generally are as good at understanding the car as I would be at driving it - ie not very good.
F1 motor racing is not a good example of non-measurable human aspects IME, I suggest you find a more appropriate analogy
Amateur racing certainly has bigger human differences and even at quite a high level in single make formulae there are race engineers who concentrate on stuff they believe to be important but are not. Their teams don’t win however good the driver and the punters firmly believe all the cars are the same!