The purpose of this study was to establish the effects of inaccurate measurements and different methods of calculations of four parameters for a Wingate High Intensity Exercise Test (WAnT). This study used the standard WAnT procedure and compared two sets of data collected simultaneously and analysed in different ways. The difference in the results generated by the different methods of data collection and processing was identified and the influence of the individual parameters on the results was isolated. The results gathered during the WAnT were work done, maximum power and average power for the subject over a 30 s period. Data was collected using Wingate Measurement system and software manufactured by Cranlea Ltd and used by physiologists and this was compared with data collected simultaneously using alternative data collection methods and analysis techniques devised from research into rope braked ergometry (Gordon et al. 2004). Data was compared using a design of experiments method known as the Taguchi method (Peace, 1993). Four parameters were required to obtain WAnT results for peak power, mean power and work done during a 30 s test. These were flywheel speed, braking force, moment of inertia of the flywheel and time period over which work and power were calculated. Only one subject who had provided informed consent was used to generate the data as this was a comparison of data collection techniques. It was found that, although the values of inertia, flywheel velocity and brake force were higher using the Cranlea system, the overall values of work done, peak power and average power were higher using the alternative system. This was due to the choice of time period over which the data was analysed and this has been discussed by Hibi et al. (1996) and quantified by this study as a crucial factor. Much work has been carried out on inertial effects in WAnT (Lakomy 1986), with 31.7% difference in the peak power (Reiser et al. 2000) but the importance of the time step seems to have been not so widely investigated. While the other factors have an influence on the results, the time over which the data is averaged is the most important giving a 9.8% increase on work done with Cranlea providing 18839.7J and the alternative system 20891J. The Cranlea system gave a peak power value of 843.57W while the alternative system gave a value of 1423.047W which gave a 40.75% increase. The average power calculated by the Cranlea system was 627.99W while the alternative system provided 722.65W which is a 13.1% increase.