Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen, klager ingen på turen. - Despite the steep hill and the cramped car, nobody complains about the trip.

Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen, klager ingen på turen.
Til tross for regnet dro vi på stranden. – Despite the rain, we went to the beach.

The structure is:

til tross for + noun / noun phrase

What is the difference between til tross for and til tross for at?

Til tross for + noun / noun phrase
- Til tross for den bratte bakken...
Til tross for at + full clause
- Til tross for at bakken er bratt, klager ingen på turen.
  – Despite the fact that the hill is steep, nobody complains about the trip.

So:

Use til tross for before a thing or situation expressed as a noun.
Use til tross for at before a whole sentence with a verb.

Could you also use selv om instead of til tross for in this sentence?

Yes, you can express the same idea with selv om (even though / although), but you must change the structure to a full clause:

Selv om bakken er bratt og bilen er trang, klager ingen på turen.

Selv om is followed by a clause, not a noun phrase:

Selv om det regner, går vi ut.
Til tross for regnet går vi ut.

Meaning is similar; til tross for feels a bit more formal or written.

Why is there a comma after den trange bilen?

The phrase Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen is a long initial adverbial (it sets the scene for the rest of the sentence). In Norwegian, it is common (and recommended) to put a comma after such a long fronted element:

Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen, klager ingen på turen.

Here the comma mainly marks a pause and helps readability.
You could also write it without the comma, and it would still be grammatically correct:

Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen klager ingen på turen.

Why is it den bratte bakken and den trange bilen, not just bratt bakke and trang bil?

Because the nouns are definite: the hill, the car.
In Norwegian, when you have:

a definite noun
with an adjective in front

you use this pattern:

den / det / de + adjective (with -e) + noun with definite ending

So:

den bratte bakken – the steep hill
den trange bilen – the cramped car
den store hunden – the big dog
det gamle huset – the old house
de lange dagene – the long days

Without definiteness, you would say:

bratt bakke – a steep hill
trang bil – a cramped car

Why do the adjectives end in -e (bratte, trange) here?

Adjectives in Norwegian normally take -e in these cases:

Before a definite noun (den / det / de + adj-e + noun-en/et/a)
- den bratte bakken
- den trange bilen
- det store huset
In plural, definite or indefinite
- bratte bakker – steep hills
- trange biler – cramped cars

So because we have den ... bakken / den ... bilen (definite), the adjectives must be bratte and trange, not bratt / trang.

Why do we use den and not det in den trange bilen?

Because bil is a masculine noun in Norwegian:

en bil – bilen – biler – bilene

With adjectives, masculine and feminine definite nouns take den:

den trange bilen – the cramped car (masc.)
den røde boka – the red book (fem.)

Neuter nouns take det:

det store huset – the big house (neut.)

So den trange bilen is correct; det trange bilen would be wrong.

Why is the word order klager ingen and not ingen klager?

Norwegian is a V2 language: in a main clause, the finite verb must be in second position.

Here the sentence starts with a prepositional phrase:

Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen – first position

Then the verb must come next:

klager – second position (finite verb)
ingen – third position (subject)

So we get:

Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen, klager ingen på turen.

If you start the sentence with the subject, then you can say:

Ingen klager på turen.
I dag klager ingen på turen.

What exactly does klager ingen på turen mean – complain about the trip or complain during the trip?

Here klage på noe means to complain about something.
So klager ingen på turen means:

nobody complains about the trip

The på belongs to the verb klager, not to a time expression. Compare:

klage på maten – complain about the food
klage på læreren – complain about the teacher
klage på været – complain about the weather

So klage på turen = complain about the trip, not complain while on the trip.

Can you also say klage over turen or use other objects, like klage på bilen?

Yes:

klage på noe and klage over noe both mean complain about something.
- klager ingen over turen – nobody complains about the trip
- klager ingen på turen – same meaning, a bit more colloquial/neutral.

You can change the object:

klage på bilen – complain about the car
klage på den trange bilen – complain about the cramped car
klage over den bratte bakken – complain about the steep hill

Why is it på turen with turen (definite) and not just på tur?

Two different things:

på turen – the specific trip being talked about
- klage på turen – complain about the trip
på tur – an idiomatic expression meaning out on a trip / walk in general
- Vi er på tur. – We are out (walking / on an outing).

In your sentence, they are all on one particular trip, so Norwegian uses the definite form turen. Using på tur here would sound like the more generic expression to be out on a trip, and klage på tur is not the natural way to say complain about the trip.

Is there any difference in meaning if you remove the comma: Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen klager ingen på turen?

There is no difference in meaning. Both are correct:

Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen, klager ingen på turen.
Til tross for den bratte bakken og den trange bilen klager ingen på turen.

The comma just marks a pause after the long initial phrase and can make the sentence slightly easier to read.