http://www.jensonusa.com/...To-6873mm-BB-Adaptor

http://www.niagaracycle.com/...JeXMZwgHjBoCvIrw_wcB

No. The bottom bracket shell width of BBRight is about 11mm wider than anything octalink or square taper cranks was designed to be used with.

The link jaretj provided above won't work for multiple reasons.

read the notes on that ......

this is all I ever found


Q.Will older cranks fit in a BBrightâ„¢ frame?A.
Yes. External-bearing cranks from Shimano, FSA, Campagnolo, etc. fit with the appropriate adaptor. See the compatibility table for details. Sixty-eight millimeter only BBs (square taper, ISIS, Octalink) do not fit.

the bolded part applies to both posts

I don't have time right now to look up the specs on this but please somebody check this out:

https://www.modernbike.com/product-2126234945

as noted above, bbright shell width is 79. square and octalink are designed for 68. you are not going to find anything for bbright that works

White Industries made a square taper BB that had a free-floating spindle which used a couple of set screws to fix the retaining rings against the bearings on either side, so if the adapter still allows for the cups to thread in and you got a long enough spindle it would clear the wider BB shell (unlike most BBs that have a fixed cartridge width or a set distance between the bearing races on the spindle). Although, the next obvious issue would be whether the cranks were designed w/ the longer spindle in mind or else the Q stance would be extra wide.

Just did a search, and the more recent White BB is different; the one I'm talking about dates back to the mid/late 90s and looks like this (you can see the set screw access holes on the wrench flats of the cups):



Here's a different BMX BB with a similar design so you can see the spindle is free to "float" w/o a fixed shell width (within the limits of the spindle length):

I see what you're saying, but even IF the spindle was wide enough, everything would be kicked to the non drive side by 11mm. That means you would need another 11mm on the other side to get everything centered. Then there's the chainline issue depending on where those 11mm came from....if possible. I really have no idea WHY OP wants to explore this idea, but if it's for a smaller q factor, any of this thinking gets thrown out the window.

I still see no problems with BB30/BBRight/BB386 if the person installing the bearings knows what they they they are doing.

I still don't think that this would work. The spindle itself has a specific length. Because BBright is wider, not enough of spindle will be sticking through to properly mount the crank.

Asking out of sheer curiosity: What square taper crank is so incredible as to want to engineer a way to fit into a BBRight frame?

The spindles came in various length options up to at least 125mm back in the day. The older MTB cranks and tandems used much longer spindles than the more modern low-profile cranks (since the old designs usually had the crankarm in a strict parallel plane w/ the chainring face rather than flaring out laterally to help w/ chainstay clearance) ~ so surely one of those would have provided enough clearance to get out past the wider shell.

Again, that only solves that one problem, but likely incurs other issues...

Yes, different spindle lengths were common. However, they all assumed that the BB shell was 68/73mm. I wonder if the spindle would still function well in a 79mm shell. ...It might!

Good question. It's actually much less about the crank and more more about the bottom bracket itself.

Many people who have been around long enough (myself included) believe the older bottom brackets were superior with regard to reliability and functionality.

Not that this will help the OP, but I'm currently using a 145mm length Phil Wood square taper on my Fatbike - they go longer than 125! Off topic- it has been flawless for 6 seasons of harsh conditions.

---

_______________________________________________

That design does not fix the spindle to a particular position relative to the bearing/cup on either side, so it could theoretically fit a BB shell of any width so long as it's less than the width of the spindle itself (between/minus the taper flats). There's no ridge, step, 'shoulder' or anything to keep the spindle from sliding all the way through from one side to the other; only the collars w/ the set screws to hold it in position laterally once it's been centered and/or chainline is optimized.

NOT like these:



Couldn't find a good pic that shows it exactly, but this is close to the same concept:

Found another pic that hopefully shows the full floating design, so the distance between the cups is not limited to any fixed standard (provided a long enough spindle):

Early 90s Shimano m550 and m730 cranks used, I believe, a 128mm spindle. I still use one on my commuter, a Gary Fisher Sphinx with an 88mm press fit shell! I guess what's old is new again, but not sure why you'd want to do this with a new bike.

I don't know the motives of the OP. ...maybe they have a power crank or other old tech that works of these BB's.

...Having said that, for a time I owned a Ridley cross bike with a campy veloce crank and square taper BB and have to say that it was incredibly smooth and would spin longer than any fancy ceramic BBs in the 'finger test'.