Last winter I made some experimentation on inside-out building. That did no make any difference on the action of the rod and makes it possible to modify the taper when the rod blank is already glued by simple sanding or planing the rod without destroying the power fibers (see details here).
Now I wanted to further improve the weight / power relation of the cane fly rod by intentionally building an asymmetric rod with a "backbone". When testing the strength/bending of a single planed strip it seems to be strongest in direction (tangentially?) to the surface power fibers, the strips don’t want to bend "sideways". Therefore I put the strips asymmetrically, with four strips inside out and two outside-out. I made actually two different asymmetric (and one traditional) PHY Driggs river special rods with the following schema (lines are the power fibers layers, for better figure)
The both experimental rods resulted in asymmetric bending action with clear backbone. I have put the guides opposite to the strongest (backbone) side. To my disappointment the difference is however quite small compared to the traditional rod and I did not get any significant additional power to the action of taper.
Any experience on this item? To have a light rod with faster action (improve the weight/action relation) should I try quad or hollow building? (Tapani Salmi)
For your rod configuration D, which flats had greatest and least stiffness. If the strips don't want to bend sideways, it seems like rod D would bend most easily with guides on flats 1 or 4.
An alternative to what you have tried would be to build a two strip and place the guides on the seam side; I suspect that has been done, maybe by Tom Smithwick or Richard Tyree, and someone could remind us of the results. Alternatively, you could build a rectangular quad and place the guides on the narrow flats. My experiments with that suggest the rod wants to twist so that it flexes in the easier bending plane. (Bill Lamberson)