Learn Hardcore Norwegian: Under snøstormen i fjor hadde vi ikke gode vinterdekk, og det føltes utrygt å kjøre. - During the snowstorm last year we did not have good winter tyres, and it felt unsafe to drive.

Under snøstormen = during the snowstorm
I snøstormen would literally be in the snowstorm and is possible, but it focuses more on being physically in the storm rather than the time period.

So:

Under snøstormen i fjor emphasizes the whole event as a time frame.
I snøstormen i fjor would sound more like “(while we were) in the middle of the snowstorm” and is a bit less neutral.

For talking about time in general, under + time expression is the standard way to say “during”:

under helgen – during the weekend
under møtet – during the meeting

Why is it “snøstormen” and not “en snøstorm”?

Snøstormen is definite singular: the snowstorm.

en snøstorm = a snowstorm (indefinite)
snøstormen = the snowstorm (definite)

In the English translation, we’d say “During the snowstorm last year …”, referring to a specific storm that both speaker and listener know about (for example, a big one everyone remembers).

Norwegian marks this “the” directly on the noun with -en:

en storm → stormen (a storm → the storm)
en snøstorm → snøstormen (a snowstorm → the snowstorm)

Why is “i fjor” right after “snøstormen” instead of at the end of the sentence?

I fjor means “last year” and describes when the snowstorm happened.

In Norwegian, it’s natural to keep closely related information together:

Under snøstormen i fjor = During the snowstorm (that was) last year

You could move i fjor:

Under snøstormen hadde vi ikke gode vinterdekk i fjor.

…but that sounds less natural, because i fjor then seems to modify the whole sentence (the whole situation happened last year), instead of clearly modifying snøstormen. The original version sounds smoother and clearer.

Why is the order “Under snøstormen i fjor hadde vi…” and not “Under snøstormen i fjor vi hadde…”?

Norwegian has the V2 rule: the finite verb is always in second position in a main clause.

The first “slot” can be almost anything (subject, time, place, object, etc.).
The second slot must be the verb.

Here, the first slot is the time expression:

Under snøstormen i fjor (slot 1)
hadde (finite verb; slot 2)
vi ikke gode vinterdekk, og det føltes utrygt å kjøre. (rest)

So:

✅ Under snøstormen i fjor hadde vi ikke gode vinterdekk…
❌ Under snøstormen i fjor vi hadde ikke gode vinterdekk… (verb is not in second position)

With a normal subject-first sentence, it’s:

Vi hadde ikke gode vinterdekk. (subject vi is slot 1, verb hadde is slot 2).

Why is “ikke” placed after “vi” (hadde vi ikke) and not before, like “vi ikke hadde”?

In main clauses, the usual order is:

[1] Subject – [2] Verb – [3] (other stuff) – [4] “ikke” – [5] rest

When a time expression starts the sentence, the subject comes after the verb, but ikke still comes after the subject and the verb:

Under snøstormen i fjor (time, fronted)
hadde (verb: 2nd position)
vi (subject)
ikke (negation)
gode vinterdekk (object)

So:

✅ … hadde vi ikke gode vinterdekk
❌ … hadde ikke vi gode vinterdekk – possible, but this adds emphasis on vi (“we didn’t have good winter tires (but others did)”).
❌ … vi ikke hadde gode vinterdekk – that word order belongs in a subordinate clause, e.g. “… fordi vi ikke hadde gode vinterdekk” (because we didn’t have good winter tires).

Why is it “gode vinterdekk” and not “god vinterdekk”?

Two things are going on:

“Vinterdekk” here is plural (more than one tire).
With an adjective in front of a plural noun, the adjective takes the plural form gode.

Patterns:

Singular: et godt vinterdekk – a good winter tire
Plural: gode vinterdekk – good winter tires

So:

god – basic form (often used as masculine/feminine singular without an article, or in some predicate uses)
godt – neuter singular
gode – plural (all genders), and also definite forms with an article/demonstrative.

Because a car has four tires, Norwegian instinctively thinks in the plural: (fire) gode vinterdekk.

What exactly does “vinterdekk” mean, and why no plural ending like “vinterdekker”?

Vinterdekk is a compound noun:

vinter (winter) + dekk (tire) → vinterdekk (winter tire / winter tires)

The noun dekk itself is one of those nouns that has the same form in singular and plural indefinite:

et dekk – a tire
de dekkene – the tires

So:

Singular indefinite: et vinterdekk
Plural indefinite: vinterdekk (same form)
Definite plural: vinterdekkene – the winter tires

Because there’s an adjective (gode) in front, we know it’s plural:

gode vinterdekk = good winter tires
a single tire would be et godt vinterdekk.

Why is it “det føltes utrygt” and not “jeg følte meg utrygg”?

Both are possible, but they mean slightly different things:

Det føltes utrygt å kjøre.
= It felt unsafe to drive.
Focus is on the situation; Norwegian uses an impersonal “det” here.
Jeg følte meg utrygg da jeg kjørte.
= I felt unsafe when I was driving.
Focus is on your personal feeling.

In the original sentence, the speaker is describing the general situation (driving without good winter tires in a snowstorm), so the impersonal construction “det føltes utrygt” is more natural.

This pattern is common:

Det føles rart. – It feels strange.
Det føltes vanskelig å si nei. – It felt difficult to say no.

Why is it “det føltes” and not “det følte”?

Føles is the reflexive/mediopassive form of the verb å føle (to feel), created by adding -s:

å føle – to feel
- (det) føles – it feels
- (det) føltes – it felt

Norwegian often uses this -s form in impersonal expressions about how something feels, seems, is experienced:

Det føles rart. – It feels strange.
Det føltes utrygt. – It felt unsafe.
Det kjennes kaldt ut. – It feels cold.

Det følte by itself would be wrong here; følte needs a subject like a person:

Jeg følte det var utrygt. – I felt it was unsafe.

Why is it “utrygt” and not “utryggt” or “utryg”?

The base adjective is utrygg = unsafe, insecure.

Adjectives change form based on gender/number:

Masculine/feminine singular: utrygg
Neuter singular: utrygt
Plural: utrygge

Here, utrygt is neuter singular, because it describes the neuter dummy subject “det” in “det føltes utrygt”.

Patterns with utrygg:

En utrygg situasjon. – an unsafe situation.
Situasjonen er utrygg. – the situation is unsafe.
Det er utrygt. – it is unsafe.
Det føles utrygt. – it feels unsafe.

So:

utrygt (neuter) is correct.
utryggt is not a Norwegian form.

Does “å kjøre” automatically mean “to drive a car” here, or could it be any vehicle?

Å kjøre means “to drive” or “to ride in/operate” a vehicle. Without any object, in everyday speech it almost always implies a car:

Det føltes utrygt å kjøre.
Most listeners will understand this as “It felt unsafe to drive (a car).”

If you want to be explicit:

å kjøre bil – to drive a car
å kjøre buss / lastebil / scooter – to drive a bus / truck / scooter

Given the context (vinterdekk = winter tires), å kjøre here is clearly driving a car.

Could I say “Vi hadde ikke gode vinterdekk under snøstormen i fjor” instead? Is that still correct?

Yes, that sentence is grammatically correct and natural.

Under snøstormen i fjor hadde vi ikke gode vinterdekk…
Vi hadde ikke gode vinterdekk under snøstormen i fjor…

Both are fine. The difference is just focus and style:

Starting with “Under snøstormen i fjor …” makes the time/situation the topic right away.
Starting with “Vi hadde ikke …” puts more immediate focus on what you lacked (good winter tires).

Norwegian allows quite a bit of flexibility with time/place expressions, as long as the V2 rule (verb in second position) is respected.

Why is the past tense “hadde” used instead of “har hatt” (present perfect)?

hadde = simple past (preterite): had
har hatt = present perfect: have had

Norwegian typically uses the simple past for a finished situation at a specific time in the past, especially when the time is mentioned:

Under snøstormen i fjor hadde vi ikke gode vinterdekk.
→ specific event, clearly over and done.

You’d use har hatt when the result or relevance continues into the present, or when the time is not specified:

Vi har hatt problemer med vinterdekk før.
– We have had problems with winter tires before. (experience / relevance now)

Because “i fjor” (last year) is a clear, finished time, hadde is the natural choice.