This paper examines the influence of two different supports, i.e., composite and steel, on the results obtained during a quasi-static crush test of an aluminum alloy honeycomb impact attenuator. It’s part of a vehicle that competes in the Formula Student series and requires safety tests to be eligible to participate in events. The attenuator is tested in two configurations – first with a rigid steel support base and second – with a composite support base, which represents a realistic replica of the first 50mm of carbon fiber monocoque used in a vehicle. The composite base is less stiff and must be tested with the impact attenuator as it is a possible safety weak point. The testing machine was an Instron 8516 set to a 60mm/min feed speed with a sampling rate of 1kHz. The results showed that the values of energy absorbed were higher (7983.9J to 8732.1J) for the case with a composite base support, whereas the average forces were similar (about 50kN). This suggests that a more realistic scenario allows for a higher safety margin rather than a decrease in it. The recommendation is to address the possible energy cumulation as elastic deformation (spring-back effect), which might be unwanted. Further studies could include dynamic testing and other attenuator designs.