Turbo

The pictured tool greatly facilitated the installation of new bungees on my Avid.  The tool is a wooden gantry that stands on top of the seat tube, is stabilized above by a strap to a structural tube, and supports a block and tackle with 6:1 purchase.  Additionally, a small fairlead and clamcleat are used to quickly secure the line.  For line I used green paracord.  I used parts from my collections of yahtie and windsurf stuff.  In order to grip and stretch the bungee, I used a small camcleat mounted on a bent piece of 1/8" aluminum.   In mounting the bungees I was able to pull each wrap tight with the block & tackle setup.  Vicegrip pliers were particularly useful for clamping already-tensioned bungee cord to the landing gear on the bottom.  They held well and were easy to put on and take off.  For each wrap I tried to stretch the bungee as much as I could, so that in the final wrap the end loop would start off already through the aperture in the bottom of the airplane.  I then simply fed a 12-15" piece of paracord thru the eye of the bungee, tied a simple loop knot in the other end, and attached it to the block.  After lifting with the block & tackle, and maneuvering it onto the hook with a screwdriver, I simply untied the loop and pulled the paracord piece out of the eye.  Done!  Solo! (Jimmie Durante would wag his substantial nose and say "hotcha!".)
Some other comments are in order.  Out of curiosity I stretch-tested a plain hardware-store bungee (Installed on the plane by a previous owner) for comparison with the Mil-spec Type-1 3/8" bungee cord sold by Aircraft Spruce & Specialty.  I was gobsmacked at the difference!  The Mil Type-1 bungee is about 3X stiffer, and will go up beyond 120 lbs per strand, whereas the hardware store stuff more-or-less stopped stretching around 35 lbs.  The Mil Type-1 stuff will stretch to double its 0-tension length.  Whatever you do, DON'T USE THE HARDWARE-STORE STUFF!.  My calculations indicate that 7 wraps of the Mil Type-1 bungees can handle a 3-G landing at my TOGW of 916lbs, but the outward gear deflection is almost 19 degrees from the 0-G gear position,  and the average bungee cord stretch is more like 5 inches!  This analysis even modeled the inward roll of the contact patch relative to the wheel as the gear splays out.  I was unable to stretch either bungee to failure, but would love to know how much tension they can take!  Online one can find many purveyors of different kinds of bungee.  If you insist on wandering off of the righteous path, I heartily recommend stretch testing, followed by analysis.  Avid's recommendation for the safety cables is to allow 3".bungee deflection.  I'd go to 5", or maybe leave them off like Joey did, just adding a bungee inspection to my pre-flight inspection list.  If you, like I, bought your bird used, I would definitely take a careful look at the LG bungees.  Are they single-flecked (hardware-store) or double-flecked (type-1)?  Is there adequate deflection capability in the safety cables?  (My airplane was a double whammy on these questions, and I needed to have my seat tube repaired after a hard landing.)

I was in the process of replacing my bungees, and thought I'd do a stretch test with the old ones to see how bad they were, and check out the engineering behnd their use as the landing gear springs.  In my stretch test I used a fish scale and tape measure to determine the spring charactrristics, Force vs. Length.  I zip-tied one end and looped the other around the fish scale's hook, then stretched it with a boat winch.  What resulted was a sideways S-shaped curve, showing what anyone who has used a slingshot knows: that a rubber spring eventually stops stretching at some load, even as load is increased.  The Hook's law spring constant is high at the low-force end, but also becomes much higher at the high-force end, and is lower, but slowly increasing in the midrange.  Weird, but likely related to  the molecular structure of rubber.  
Knowing that a spring's stiffness is inversely proportional to length, I then applied the stretch data to the loop geometry of the Avid's landing gear.  It's convenient that in re-wrapping the bungees, the force required is totally manageable, due to the 7 wraps used.  Of course this means we are applying a preload.  At this point we are stretching the bungees to 132% of their no-load length.  Of greatest interest to me was the realization that the bungees stretch up to 172% of their no-load length.  It is here that the bungees stop stretching, even as force is increased further.  Half of the bungee-centerline wrap distance is 8.5", and with 90" no-load length and 7 wraps (14 strands) each strand's no-ĺoad length is 6.43".  Stetching stops at 172% of no-load length, so full extension should be reached at 3.4", not the 3" prescribed in the build manual!  The safety cable is only there to prevent total collapse, but if it's shorter than full extension, you risk bending &  crimping the thinwall tube under your seat; the tube the bungees wrap around, if you land too hard.  The bungees wouldn't be able to absorb the energy before the merciless cable comes into play!  That cable applies a point load to the tube, not distributed like that of the bungee.  
So those are the results of my analysis.  Am I nuts?  I'm sure others in the group have thought thru this as well.
Making up my new bungees, a special thanks is due to Fred, who showed an elegant approach!

Celebrated Cinco de Mayo 2018 with first flight...yowtza!  Mine, N23PB is STOL taildragger with grey-head 582, 3:1 C-box, swinging 72" 3-bladed IVO.
I've got to admit all this talk about groundloops had me fearing 1st flight, wondering if I too would immediately fall prey.  The good-news takeaway for me was the realization that the Avid has plenty of rudder authority on landing!  The one-person 25mph stall speed is pure myth.  Stall IAS showed up around 40 mph, with no steady-state stall per se, just a controllable mush.  Engine was smooth (above idle) and powerful, and P-factor is reminiscent of WW2 warbirds with their huge props. I found myself sideways on steep climbout before applying the required left rudder.  Just putting around the sky was great; down to 4000rpm I could hold altitude just fine.  4500 seemed a good cruise rpm.  In 1.8 hrs I burned just 5 gallons!  According to the Rotax data, the engine should be burning 3.3 gph at that rpm. Thermal efficiency is pretty good there as well - just below 30%!  But it goes down with rpm - to just over 20% at 6000 rpm.  I'll post fuel flow & thermal efficiency data in customary units if desired, translated from Rotax data in the metric system.  
I could not do a graceful takeoff!  The bird ran along the ground, then ballooned up suddenly!  I clearly need practice!  Landing proved way more problematic.  The bird just didn't want to come down, and I executed a number of go-arounds.  The short, narrow runway demanded more of me than I expected: my landings were awful!  I will go elsewhere to practice!  And practice I must!  This bird was demanding, and I fear grace may prove elusive.   Hats off to you guys who fly her well!   
Shaky Jake has nothing on the 582.  The cabin noise & vibration at idle (below, say 3000 rpm) were horrible.  I am contemplating a clutch to help with that, but need some inputs from those who have gone there.  What does a freewheeling prop do to landing approach?  How are taxiing and landing runout affected?  All-in-all, it was a very exciting day!  - Turbo