Til tross for at eiken skiftes, er felgen og navet hele.

Til tross for at means despite the fact that.

It is made up of:

• til tross for = despite / in spite of
• at = that

You use til tross for at when it is followed by a full clause with a verb:

• Til tross for at eiken skiftes ...
• Despite the fact that the spoke is being replaced ...

If you follow it with just a noun phrase, you usually leave out at:

• til tross for skaden = despite the damage

Eiken is the definite singular form of eik.

In this sentence, it means the spoke, not just a spoke. Norwegian often uses the definite form when talking about a specific part in a known object, especially in technical or practical contexts.

Also, this is a good reminder that eik has more than one meaning:

• eik = oak in one context
• eik = spoke in wheel/bicycle context

Here it clearly means spoke because of the other wheel words:

• felg = rim
• nav = hub

Because in Norwegian, the definite article is usually attached to the end of the noun.

So:

• eik = a spoke

• eiken = the spoke

• felg = a rim

• felgen = the rim

• nav = a hub
• navet = the hub

This is very normal in Norwegian. English uses a separate word (the), but Norwegian often uses an ending instead.

Skiftes is a passive form.

• skifter = changes / replaces someone or something actively
• skiftes = is changed / is replaced

So eiken skiftes means:

• the spoke is being replaced
• or more generally the spoke is replaced

This -s passive is very common in Norwegian, especially in written language and factual/technical statements.

A more explicit passive would be:

• eiken blir skiftet

That often sounds a little more like is being replaced, while skiftes can sound slightly more neutral or general.

Because Norwegian follows the V2 rule in main clauses: the finite verb usually comes in the second position.

The sentence begins with a subordinate clause:

• Til tross for at eiken skiftes

After that whole clause comes the main clause, and its verb must come first:

• er felgen og navet hele

Compare:

• Felgen og navet er hele.
• Til tross for at eiken skiftes, er felgen og navet hele.

In English, you would usually keep the rim and the hub are..., but Norwegian requires this inversion after a fronted element.

Because the sentence starts with a subordinate clause, and in Norwegian it is standard to separate that from the main clause with a comma.

So:

• Til tross for at eiken skiftes, er felgen og navet hele.

This comma helps show the structure:

1. subordinate clause first
2. main clause after it

Because hele agrees with a plural subject.

The subject is:

• felgen og navet = the rim and the hub

That is two things, so Norwegian uses the plural form of the adjective:

• hel = singular, common gender
• helt = singular, neuter
• hele = plural

So:

• felgen er hel = the rim is intact
• navet er helt = the hub is intact
• felgen og navet er hele = the rim and the hub are intact

Here hel/hele means intact / undamaged, not just whole in a mathematical or abstract sense.

Because they have different grammatical genders.

• felg is a common gender noun, so the definite singular is felgen
• nav is a neuter noun, so the definite singular is navet

This is a very common pattern:

• common gender: -en
• neuter: -et

So the different endings are not random; they show noun gender.

It can be either, depending on context.

The present passive skiftes can mean:

• something happening now: is being replaced
• a more general or procedural fact: is replaced

In a sentence like this, many readers would understand it as a current situation:

• Even though the spoke is being replaced, the rim and the hub are intact.

But grammatically, the form itself does not force only that reading.

Yes. For example:

• Felgen og navet er hele, til tross for at eiken skiftes.

That is also grammatical.

The original version puts the despite idea first, which gives it more emphasis:

• Til tross for at eiken skiftes, er felgen og navet hele.

So the difference is mostly about focus and style, not basic meaning.