It's a follow up of Prove that $\sum_{\mathrm{cyc}} \frac{214x^4}{133x^3 + 81y^3} \ge x + y + z$ for $x, y, z > 0$ :
Problem :
Let $x,y,z,k>0$ find the "best" value of $k$ such that :
$$\frac{x^4}{kx^3+y^3} + \frac{y^4}{ky^3 + z^3} + \frac{z^4}{kz^3 + x^3} \ge \frac{x+y+z}{k+1}.$$
The inequality has a local minimum around $(x,y,z)=\left(\frac{43}{66},1,\frac{121}{84}\right)$ in the case where $k=\frac{133}{81}$
Some tought :
We have a first fact :
$$f(x):=\frac1{150607+91722x^6}.$$ The function is convex on $x\in[1.03,\infty)$.
Proof :
$$f''(x)=\frac{550332(642054x^6-753035)}{150607+91722x^6}$$
Then we minimize using Jensen's inequality. We have the new problem for $x,y,z\geq 0$ and $z\geq y \ge x$, $\frac{z}y,\frac{y}x\in[1.031,\infty)$:
$$g(x,y,z)=\left(x^2+0.000001\right)f\left(\frac{0.000001\frac{z}y+xy}{x^2+0.000001}\right)+0.999999f\left(\frac{z}y\right)+\frac{z^8}{150607z^6+91722x^{6}}-\frac{x^2+y^2+z^2}{150607+91722}$$
Then (and it includes the hard case described by user RiverLi) :
$$g(x,1,(1+x^8)(1+y))\geq0$$
Where all the coefficients are positive.
We can use this method as we wish, but it doesn't really give the value of $k$ .
Edit :
Using basic algebra and derivative we have the function $x,y,z,p,u,v,k,w,n>0$:
$$f(x)=\frac{px^4}{x^3+1}+u\cdot\frac{y^3}{y^3+1}+v\frac{\frac{z^3}y}{z^3+1}-\frac{1+pkx+\frac{w}y}{n+1}$$
$xyz=\text{constant}$
For the minimum see here.
Motivation :
In the post linked, tthnew gives a polynomial wich gives the value of $k\simeq\frac{150607}{91722}$ . So I think like RiverLi: there's no closed form using radicals. Now, there is here the Galois's theory even if to all confess it's far beyond my level .Anyway the goal idea is : we can find(introducing a $\varepsilon$ in the new problem/inequality) for an arbitrary large number of digits (1.6,1.64,1.649 and so on ) the value of $k$.That is a problem of limit when $\varepsilon\to zero$.Another argument you can find in the edit is :using derivatives and a cheated constraint we can calculate all the extrema wich is good news, but from my point of view leads nowhere and needs another argument. So, my motivation is : using classical tools (derivative, Jensen,...) rather than "heavy" theory (Galois,elliptic..) it would be a "tour de force" if we find the value of $k$ like this.
Edit : I finally found a way using Lagrange Reversion theorem apply to tthnew's equation .
Question :
How to find the "best" constant $k$ ,here I mean by "best" wich cannot be replaced by a stronger value .
And is there any closed form for $k$ ?